User talk:Lima Bean Farmer

Welcome!

Hi Wjrz nj forecast! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Sdkb (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

House Elections 2020

Listen I know you do not mean to cause conflicts like this but the special elections are already listed and the elections already held will have their incumbents shown as well. Stop updating that list it makes the article which is already big enough bigger. The two vacancies without special elections will be listed but the ones that will be held before election day are already listed in their respective section so there is no need to repeat it. That is the end. Besides April 28th is coming about and the article will change soon with Maryland's vacancy being filled and Ohio's primary results. Please stop adding that other info in. Wollers14 (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I know this, I am more than happy to hear your opinion on the talk page of how this article should be set up. In fact, some other editors and I have been debating this issue already on the talk page. I would definitely like to do this, as I respect the opinions/edits of other editors. However, in order for me to do so, I would appreciate that we discuss this instead of you just making an executive decision (which you do not have the authority to do). Instead, let’s try to reach a consensus after you hear my reasoning too. Thank you! Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Resignations, deaths, and special elections is the name of the talk page so feel free to add your comments there. You will see my opinions there as well as other editors who share your opinion. Thank you Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Wheel of Fortune (American game show), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Additional unsourced edits: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] AldezD (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen, you may be blocked from editing. AldezD (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Why would I be blocked from editing? You’re deleting my edits. My edits are not controversial and do not require sources. Your deletions are disruptive as they are deleting facts. If you really want a source, do your own research and add them. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

That isn't how it works. I just came here to mention the same problem, as I reverted your edit to The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon. When you add information to an article, you need to cite the source for that information. Schazjmd (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yikes, y’all are getting so upset. I’ll leave it up to you to do the research, come up with your own wording, and add the citation if that’s what you want. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent you from persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello NinjaRobotPirate, would you mind being more specific on why you have blocked me from editing? You sent me an article about unsourced editing but it had nothing on it about being blocked or specify why I was blocked. I plan to request to be unblocked but I would first like to work with you to understand why blocking me was what you did. Thank you for your time Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

No warningWjrz nj forecast (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

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. You have been previously and sufficiently warned about not adding unsourced content, as evidenced by the two discussions above. Verifiability is one of the core policies of Wikipedia, and you are expected to abide by it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

I had previously made some edits which some people thought were controversial. Since then I have not edited any of those pages. Last night I made some edits on other pages, and followed the guidelines which my fellow editors gave me. Since I did not believe that the edits were controversial, I did not add a cited source. Based on the articles which AldezD, Schazjmd, and NinjaRobotPirate gave including the reason to block me, state that I only need a citation if an edit was controversial. I did not believe the edits I made were controversial and added them in good faith. Some point last night, while I was asleep in my time zone, I was brought to the administrators board and would like to have responded. When I woke up this morning, I was blocked. Once again, the pages where my edits were reverted I have not touched. I would have appreciated a warning from NinjaRobotPirate, but I never received one. I was just blocked. I promise not to add any more unsourced edits. I enjoy Wikipedia discussions and was about to participate in one before I realized I was blocked. Thank you Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Your talk page already has enough warnings and doesn't need another. You seem to think that the burden is on other people to add citations to your edits, but policy says it is on you. That means that you can't tell people to go find a citation to verify content that you've added. Statements that have been challenged are, by definition, controversial and require a citation. If you can demonstrate that you understand how to add a citation, I'll unblock you. Just reply below this message, here on your talk page, with an encyclopedic statement that has an inline citation. Please ensure that the source verifies the statement and is reliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

All Broadway shows have had their production halted until September 6, 2020. Ryan McPhee (May 12, 2020). "Broadway shutdown extended through the summer due to ongoing coronavirus crisis". Playbill.com. Playbill.com. Retrieved May 15, 2020. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, I hope you honor your deal and unblock me.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Fulfilled request Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

NRP is welcome to unblock if he wishes, but since that reference above is not actually formatted as an inline citation, I'm not convinced you actually do understand how to cite information here. Yunshui ^雲_水 06:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

NinjaRobotPirate said I’d be unblocked if I demonstrated how to cite a reliable source. Since I have done this I hope to be unblocked and to continue productive editing.

All Broadway shows have had their production halted until September 6, 2020. (Ryan McPhee, May 12, 2020). Is that better Yunshui? Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Broadway productions have been suspending through September 6, 2020. <ref>McPhee, Ryan. “Broadway shutdown extreme through the summer due to ongoing coronavirus crisis”. Playbill.com, May 12, 2020. I followed the exact format for inline editing. Yunshui or NinjaRobotPirate please unblock me now. I made edits in good faith and won’t do it again as I’ve said before. I really don’t want to make another official request to be unblocked.

Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Followed guidelines and administrator requests Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I've unblocked you, but please consider that policy says that "any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged" requires a citation. That means that if someone challenges your unsourced addition, it can not be re-added until you provide a source for it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for once again requesting that I be unblocked. I would like to continue making productive edits (at least make comments in talk pages) as soon as possible. I have reviewed Wikipedia’s policy on being unblocked multiple times. I will not post any more controversial comments without a reliable source. Administrators have asked me to show a sample of a cited edit which I have showed. I did not realize that the edits that I made were controversial/required a source. Previously, I have not reverted edits unless I believed them to be reliable or necessary. Other than that I have not engaged in edit warring and have taken other administrators’ and editors’ advice as well as “contacted” them. My edits were not malicious. I appreciate your time, I have not been purposefully making flagrant requests. Each time I do I am promised to be unblocked but then I never am. Your fellow Wikipedian, Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. Additionally, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.

If you intend to make useful contributions other than promoting your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:

• Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
• Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block. To do so, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason for thinking that the block was an error, and publish the page. Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry this has been a complete misunderstanding. I will change my username, as I was willing to do with User:AlanM1 and on the administrators board. I am not sure what you mean by promotional content, I have never posted anything that I believe promotes a business. I am not paid by anyone, I am aware that that is against policy. Please point me to where you see promotional or advertising content. I really did not mean for anything to be promotional or advertising. Please explain User:Orangemike. Thank uou Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Your username is "Wjrz nj forecast" and then for a userpage you post "Follow the 2020 House Elections!!! And the Covid 19 shut downs." How are we to interpret that, if not as an advertisement for people to listen to WJRZ in New Jersey? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m so sorry, I meant that I follow the 2020 elections and the covid 19 shutdown. That’s where I have done the majority of my editing. I was most definitely not intending to encourage people to listen to WJRZ. I will also delete the section stating that says follow the elections. I really am not promotional nor am I paid by anyone. Thank you User:Orangemike Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

If you let me change my username and my user page, we can put this behind us as a complete misunderstanding. Thank you User:Orangemike. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Unblock discusion

• Great Ghu! I'm not gonna read this entire talk page nor am I gonna read the many unblock requests. One is more than enough. @Wjrz nj forecast: You need to choose a new username. One that is not a company or organization. I'll take you at your word if you say you are unconnected with the radio station. That does not address the glib promotional content on your user page. It sounded like a sound bite, and we've all seen enough promo content that we could write ad copy ourselves. We see a lot of it. I assume you will not link to or edit about the radio station.
• Assuming the reliable sourcing for all edits issue has been addressed, I think that is no longer a problem. On the other hand, one's edits should never be " a little off". At it's best, that's just sloppy. The response does not convince me this would not continue to be a problem.
• I take it the incivility of the edit summaries in this ANI thread have been dealt with? If you have already done so/not have already done so, please reiterate in this section what we do instead of edit warring.
• For goodness sake. Never change someone else's talk page content, especially if it changes the meaning.
• I might have missed an issue or two.
• The seeming dismissal of the concerns raised here inclines me to decline all those unblock requests. My impression is that user means well, despite the abrasiveness and inability to receive feedback, but WP:CIR might be the problem. WP:AN might be an option, but that risks a WP:CBAN.@Orangemike: over to you. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 12:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello User:Deepfriedokra, first I would like to thank you for the time you’ve taken to address this issue. I have been blocked on Wikipedia for having a username against policy and for advertising. I have explained that I created the username 2 months ago when I made my account, not realizing it was against policy. I also requested to change it. As for the user page, I was not attempting to advertise but instead stating what my edits were focused on. I really meant “I follow the elections and the pandemic”, not encouraging others/advertising. I will change this but I would like to be unblocked. As for the other issues, they have been addressed and I am learning as I improve as an editor. I would just like to continue improving, but I can’t if I’m being blocked with an advertising mistake. Please re instate my account. Regards, Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Deepfried, this editor did stipulate a new name they would like to use (Lima Bean Fest). I'm willing to see an unblock on the AGF and rope principles. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Please unblock this account. I have not only said that I would change my account name, but that I would change the edits which were misunderstood to be promotional. There’s not much else I can do while I’m still being blocked. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Orangemike, could you please reinstate my account? Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Unblock discussion

Orangemike agrees to unblock once rename is successful. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 04:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry this has been so fraught. Maybe now. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 05:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek, Yunshui, and NinjaRobotPirate: Ok to unblock? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 05:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC) { @Orangemike: --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 05:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

So many unblock requests and sections... I personally wouldn't have reblocked the account, so I'd support an unblock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Good by me. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that a WP:CIR-based block will follow in the not-too-distant future, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong. No objection here. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Lima Bean Farmer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

Lima Bean Farmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

same as above

Decline reason:

You had 3 (three!!!) open unblock requests. That's abusive. There's no reason, ever, to have more than one open unblock request at a time. I see your username has been changed and you are free to make one (exactly one) more unblock request which addresses your inappropriate edits and which tells us what you'll write about instead. Note that I didn't review your multiple unblock requests, so this is a procedural decline. Note if you make multiple simultaneous unblock requests again, you will be clearly demonstrating you lack the capability to edit here and will lose access to your talk page. Similarly if you make an unblock request which does not address your promotional edits or which does not tell us specifically what you'll write about instead. Yamla (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

globally renamed Wjrz nj forecast to Lima Bean Farmer

globally renamed Wjrz nj forecast to Lima Bean Farmer --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 05:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Does this mean that I can be unblocked now Deep fried okra? I appreciate you renaming me, but why are CaptainEek, Yunshui, and NinjaRobotPirate being asked about this? I have nothing against these users but I was just wondering if it was a procedural thing. Since the block was due to my username and it has now been changed, I feel that an unblock would be fair, especially since Orangemike said it would be. Also I apologize, but I don’t see how to make your username bold, so apologies for that. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought this would go better. They either blocked or declined to unblock. I cannot unblock on my own. . --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 13:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: If this block was only for the username, I have no objections to you overriding my decline and lifting the block. However, the block notice is for promotional edits. --Yamla (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yamla: Good point. I think the promo edits have been dealt with somewhere in this growing maelstrom of a talk page. I will not unblock without a consensus. Lima Bean Farmer-- for the sake of my poor eyes, please reiterate how you will avoid promotional editing. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 14:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I have explained about 10 times that I never did make promotional editing. I simply put on my page “follow the 2020 house elections and the covid 19 pandemic.” This was meant to state that I follow these things as this is where I do most of my editing. It was never meant to be promotional, just bad grammar. I’ve already stated so many times that I would change this to say that’s what I follow. User:Orangemike found this as a reason to unblock me. User:Yamla, you’d unblock statement did not seem to be in good faith. As much as I don’t like to give up on things, I feel that I will never be able to edit again. I’ve asked that my account be re instated so many times. There’s only so much I can do. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) – I've been watching Wjrz/Lima's edits since their odd behavior on Talk:Kim Jong-un in April. They have not made promotional edits to mainspace articles. The "promotional block" was based on their original account name and the unfortunate wording on their user page, both of which have been rectified. They made a number of unsourced edits but eventually understood that they needed to include a citation with their edits and began doing so. After watching them submit unblock requests that got no response, I believe the repeated unblock requests might either have been done for fear they did it wrong so they tried again or frustration at nobody replying. Schazjmd (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Your name has been changed and your account unblocked. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Note now you are unblocked, you are free to remove all of the content, including the accepted and declined unblock requests, from this page if you wish. You are not at all obligated to do so; you are free to leave them here if you prefer. --Yamla (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

L

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This barnstar is awarded to recognize particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia, to let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated. For your expeditious work on List of Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, ensuring individuals added meet WP:ENDORSE. Thank you for your work, keep it up! —MelbourneStar☆talk 06:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Copyright is a restriction put on a certain image or piece of information (logo, graph, etc. This can not be used on Wikipedia since we do not have permission to put it on there and Wikipedia is free to the public. Occasionally, a piece of information, such as a quote, a video file, or an image, which is copyrighted, can be used to show a clear point, following Wikipedia guidelines as well as those of the origin of the information. In the future, I will not use any copyrighted information. I usually stick with reverting edits and adding information with basic inline citations. At the time, I did not know I was breaking any policies, but now that I have read this article, I will be sure to not break this policy again. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocked with consent of the blocking admin. Yamla (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@JJMC89: You are the blocking administrator. With the exception of how Wikipedia is licensed, LBF has hit all the high points here. I'm inclined to unblock, with a warning that essentially any further block would be the end but also with the hope there won't be any further problems related to non-free content. What do you think? --Yamla (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Yamla, I agree. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

That’s great JJMC89, could either you or Yamla unblock me now? Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

L

Twitter endorsement deletions

Lima Bean Farmer (talk), Why did you remove all twitter endorsements for 2020 US Senate candidates!? Please bring them back this instant! They have reliable sources! -Jason S. Goldstein Jason S. Goldstein (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Jason S. Goldstein! Twitter is not a reliable source. However, if you have reliable sources yourself, feel free to add them back citing these sources. Feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions. Happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Spacing/dash

Hi Lima! Re this edit, and perhaps prior edits to said list, there's a space that you've been adding between the content and citation, for example: –2020)[space]<ref>. There should be no space between the content and citation, as this is consistent throughout Wikipedia. It should appear like this: –2020)<ref>.

Additionally, to conform with MOS:ENTO I've converted all of the dashes (-) to en dash, which is –. To locate this specific dash: 1. Look above the edit summary function, 2. press "Wiki markup" on the drop down list, 3. the en-dash is the first dash after "insert". Eg. So if we can turn this: (1986-2004) into → (1986–2004), that would be great!

You've been a real asset to Wikipedia, please keep up the great work! kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

MelbourneStar☆^talk, I don’t see an edit summary function. I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lima,

I'm referring to this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

 

This is a minor edit Watch this page

By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

Publish changes Show preview Show changes Cancel

Directly above it you'll see the "Insert"/"Wiki markup" drop down box. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

MelbourneStar☆^talk, I’m real sorry, but I don’t see any of that on my screen. I don’t see the “minor edit” box either. After I make an edit it comes to a page that says “how did you improve this page” and I can type in an edit summary. None of the other stuff is there. I’m not sure why. Should I ask at the tea house? I don’t want to inconvenience anyone with these improper dashes so I’d like to figure this out before we start editing again. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lima, no need to apologise! :)

You will only see the edit summary function box when you start editing an article. The "minor edit" box will appear directly under the edit summary box. Directly above the edit summary feature is a drop-down menu which lists a number of things, such as: "Wiki markup", "Insert", "Symbols", "Latin", "IPA", and so forth. If you press "wiki markup", next to the drop down menu will appear many different characters/codes that can be used in articles or talk pages, wherever really. The proper dash to use is the first dash shown (indeed, first character shown) once you press "Wiki markup".

Does that make sense? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

MelbourneStar☆^talk, I think you are using a different device which may have more features. For the future, I can copy the dash you added and paste it where I need it. Thank you so much for letting me know about that! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, that is very strange. I'll follow that up for you. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

So Lima, I've reached out to someone who is evidently more switched on than I am :')

You're right, you don't have it. That's because it needs to be activated within your preferences. To do this, you go to "Preferences" (on top right of any Wikipedia page when logged in) → then press "Gadgets" → then, under the heading "Editing", tick the box that says next to it "CharInsert: add a toolbar under the edit window for quickly inserting wiki markup and special characters (troubles?)". Once you tick this box, go to the bottom of the page and hit "Save". And there you go! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

MelbourneStar☆^talk, I don’t have preferences in my top right hand screen. The only thing in the top right is a bell and a thing that lets me search articles. I’m sorry that this has been an inconvenience. I will copy and paste the dash you added or I won’t do this type of editing at all. Thank you for going through so much trouble. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

That's so strange. I don't know why that's the case. Either way, no need to apologise as this isn't your fault. Please continue editing where you please (especially that list, you do a great job). I'll fix the dashes here and there, no problem! kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

MelbourneStar☆^talk, I think it has to do with me using an iPhone to edit. I appreciate you spending so much time on this issue! Happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh wow, I've never edited with my IPhone. I imagine that would be difficult! No worries, anytime. Likewise, happy editing! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

George W Bush

Hi his official office spokesman said this to the Texas tribune.

"Freddy Ford, a spokesman for Bush, told The Texas Tribune that Bush would steer clear of speaking publicly on his presidential vote and called The New York Times assertion false."

"This is completely made up," Ford said in an email. "He is retired from presidential politics and has not indicated how he will vote." https://www.texastribune.org/2020/06/06/george-w-bush-donald-trump/

Its open and shut please do not change any of my edits.Guitarguy2323 (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Guitarguy2323, it’s not open and shut. The New York Times made this report. This is a reliable source, a spokesman talking about this is not. If you have another reliable source or a direct quote from Bush saying that he will vote for Trump or that the times article is false, please cite this before adding it back. Feel free to reach out with any further questions! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I do have a reliable source. His OFFICIAL Spokesman from his office wrote to the Texas Tribune I assume you know what that means said he is not commenting on either way he is staying out of it completely and called the report false. I have fox news reporting the quote as well as others. Reverse my edits one more time and I will contact the admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarguy2323 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Guitarguy2323, you are edit warring. I recommend that you read this article on how to properly edit. The only source you showed was a Texas Tribune article reporting what a spokesman said. Once again, if you have a reliable source (New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, NPR, etc) reporting this (not just the quote, but saying it themselves), then I agree it should be deleted. If not, it should be left until there is further consensus on the talk page. You may also want to read this article before any further accusations of trolling. @FlightTime: reverted your edits. Do not delete these again without consensus, thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

banned editors

Hello Banned editors usually have their edits reverted in order to discourage them from editing. See WP:BANREVERT. It has nothing to do with whether they are sourced. You are free to put this information into the article, but you are taking responsibility for the accuracy. You should know that accuracy is not their strong suit and there are frequent BLP violations. If you do, you also need to understand that you are potentially encouraging an abusive sockpuppet to have an ongoing fixation with these articles and with Wikipedia. Up to you!!!--Slp1 (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Important standard notices

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

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

--Neutrality^talk 22:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Hi Lima Bean Farmer.  I wanted to let you know that political endorsements must meet all three of these criteria:

1. The endorser must have an article or be unquestionably entitled to one
2. This endorsement must be covered by reliable and independent sources
3. Coverage of the endorsement needs to use the word endorse, or other closely related synonym.

This is covered by the guideline WP:ENDORSE and the community consensus at WP:ERFC.

For that reason, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, poker websites, and blogs are not acceptable sources. Also, donating to a campaign or showing up to a campaign rally are not endorsements. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you - MrX 🖋 11:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello MrX🖋! I’m very well aware of these conditions. First, it’s none of the things on the bottom (financial, youtube, etc) so I’m not sure why that’s added. Second, Quaid is a notable person. Third, cbs news is covering it. Fourth, it lists celebrities who support Trump. While it does not specifically say “endorse” supporting his re election campaign is the closest thing to it. I would have rather this been discussed on the talk page before you deleted it. I will not add it back until further discussed but this is how edit wars start. Just something to consider for next time! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

An endorsement is a specific, deliberate act. The RfC referenced above was conducted because of cases like this. We now require sources to say unambiguously that a person has endorsed a candidate, or made a statement in support of a candidate's campaign, or similar wording. Being on list of people who support a candidate is not enough, unless the source says that all of the people on the list have endorsed the candidate. - MrX 🖋 15:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

🖋, isn’t saying that they support them in 2020 considered an endorsement? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Not by my interpretation. You can raise the issue on the article talk page and see what other think. - MrX 🖋 17:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

MrX🖋, I have called on my fellow editors to do this multiple times as it seems to be causing somewhat of an edit war. I will place my opinion there, but since it says that they support his re election in 2020, I think there should be consensus before removal. I will not add it back unless there is consensus to. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONUS says there should be consensus before insertion, but more importantly, claims must be directly verifiable in a reliable source. In this case, the source said nothing about an endorsement. - MrX 🖋 22:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Reply

As long as you are editing in good faith, I would not worry too much about the other user. They are evading a block and have been community banned. I've already told them that if they disagree with your edits that (once they are able to get unblocked) they should engage with you to discuss the issue. I have not reviewed your edits and have no opinion about them at this time. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Your recent editing history at List of Republicans who oppose the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – bradv🍁 21:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Just so you know, you can't claim WP:EDITCONSENSUS when other editors are actively contesting your edit. That implies that their opinions don't count. The right and honourable thing to do at this point would be to self-revert and discuss the matter on the talk page. – bradv🍁 21:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Looking at this in a little more detail, it is clear that you don't intend to listen to the other editors. You have completely misinterpreted the sources for these entries, as you have been told several times, yet you continue to reinsert the content claiming that you have consensus. Accordingly, I have blocked you from editing this article for a week, during which you are welcome to contribute to discussions on the article talk page. You may appeal this decision at WP:AN if you believe I have erred. – bradv🍁 21:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

What? Why did you do that? I have added the most edits to that page out of any editor. There is no consensus yet for this page and my edits have been up there for weeks. I have asked that the other editors use the talk page to come to a consensus before deletion. I have listened to the other editors and have even deleted a few edits based on the others’ comments. However, I have been willing to listen and have been debating on the talk page. So far, there is no consensus, but when one is reached, I will follow it. This is ridiculous that you banned me from editing the article which I have done so much work to improve. I have added hundreds of republicans who oppose Trump and am being banned over some five thirty eight article which covers like 10 people? This is ridiculous Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, since your “warning” I have not made any further edits to the article. What type of warning is it if I still get punished for heeding it? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:OWN. And since you made it clear on the talk page that you intend to continue reverting changes you don't like, I have blocked you to prevent further disruption to this article. But there are still 6 million other articles you can work on. – bradv🍁 22:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I never said I own anything on Wikipedia. However, I made an extreme impact on this article so having me blocked from it is just a detriment to the article. I have helped with formatting, adding many of the 70 Biden endorsements. I didn’t say I will revert changes I don’t like. In fact, after hearing another editor’s opinion, I deleted a few of my own edits (a few think tanks and the federalist society) but when my edits have been on there for almost a month and then are deleted with no consensus (and an article stating they are never trumpers) this should be reverted until further consensus. I was happy to hear consensus but no one but myself ever actually tried debating the meaning of the article other than saying I have a loose interpretation of it. Please unblock me. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Twitter endorsements

Why did you delete Twitter endorsements on House Races? Are those against the rules?. Seems like a fine primary source to me, and I’ve seen it literally hundreds of times on political pages... Kingmaker7676 (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah. Never mind, Someone has directed me to the guidelines and I’m reading them now. Kingmaker7676 (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

List of Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign endorsements

I would like to point out that a reference is not necessary in order to change this to more neutral language. The January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation article itself refers in its opening paragraph to "a widely reported confrontation between groups of political demonstrators." NomadicNom (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok NomadicNom, but what exactly does it say about this incident? Also, try to cite the background source and not Wikipedia itself unless a basic description is provided (like saying author or liberal media host). Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing me with another editor involved on the page, I'm only trying to keep it NPOV (nothing about author or liberal media hosts). I cannot provide a citation for something like this other than giving the example of how the other page is written; many sources can be found there for the considerable back-and-forth on which side confronted the other. Because of that, we cannot create a simple "X confronted Y"; that would be non-NPOV. NomadicNom (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lima, I know you're trying to make constructive edits but some things require a little probing. You recently reverted an edit to David Horowitz about being far-right. The material was clearly unsourced and his page describes him as conservative. The onus would have been on you to provide the suitable sources, and not reverting my edit to remove unsourced material as per WP:BLP. Wikipedia is very strict on this kind of stuff. Good luck with further editing Alexandre8 (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Where do you obtain the latest endorsements

Hi Lima Bean!

I was wondering where you managed to collate together all the new endorsements? Are you using another source that has already done a similar job? The ones I've added have just been from my own personal interactions with media. Cheers! Alexandre8 (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Alexandre8, I’m a little confused to what you’re asking, but I will try to answer it. I have gone on the websites of the two major candidates in this upcoming election and found outsourced information on endorsements. I’m not sure if this answers your question, let me know. Also, why do you keep thanking me for my edits? Just wondering. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

ahh ok! just using their websites, got it. I was wondering if someone else was collaborating these. Wikipedia is volunteers, so just two clicks and a thanks appears! Alexandre8 (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked again

In the past few hours since your block from editing List of Republicans who oppose the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign expired, you have gone right back to the same edit warring and article ownership issues that led to your previous block. In particular, you added Dawn Addiego twice, George W. Bush twice, and Charlie Crist 3 times, despite knowing that others disagreed with you, and without seeking consensus on the talk page.

Your partial block from editing this article is now set to indefinite. You may appeal this decision at the administrators' noticeboard. – bradv🍁 04:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

bradv🍁, where are you getting the ownership of content thing? I never claimed ownership of content. As for Charlie Crist, I added him and Muboshgu deleted it saying he is not a Republican. I added it back (second time) with Dawn (for the first time) explaining that the reason for deletion was not valid, since they served in office as Republicans. When Muboshgu deleted it again, I did not immediately revert. Instead, I explained on the articles talk page, munoshgu’s talk page, and even your talk page that these fit the criteria and that Muboshgu’s deleting was not a valid reason. After many hours, I reverted it. As for Bush, I added it back only once and it was with a new source that clearly said oppose. After it was reverted, I continued a discussion on the talk page. I don’t see how this would be edit warring. For Bush I made one revert and then utilized the talk page. For Crist, I reverted once and then before doing it again I explained to the editor and included all the information to why the people listed belong on the article. I didn’t just keep reverting. In fact I actually waited. Don’t make me go through the unblock process again. All of my edits have been in good faith and not edit warring. With the amount of discussion I’ve done on the talk page I don’t know how this could be considered edit warring at all. Is there any advice you could give me or something I should know that would allow me to start editing again more productively? If I agree to something specific that would allow you to unblock me? If I really wanted to edit war, I’d just add back all of the senators and the people who we are discussing now. That’s not what happened. An editor reverted my edits as they didn’t fully understand the criteria and I reverted it. I then explained to them why they belong, waited a while, and then added it back. Should I have not added Crist back initially and first explained before adding him back the first time? If so, I would agree (and would do that in the future anyways). Regards Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I support the block for the reasons given. You were clearly edit warring, and were effectively controlling the article against the opposition of others (and that's the WP:OWN bit, whether or not you actually claimed ownership). Edit warring is when you make a change, it is reverted, and you reinstate that change without getting a consensus for it. You don't just tell the other editor why they're wrong, or decide that it's simply because they don't understand, and then reinstate the change. You get a consensus. If the other editor responds and agrees you were right, you can reinstate the change. But if they disagree or they just do not respond after an arbitrary time, you can not. You seek a consensus. Are you getting the key word here? You ask for advice? How about working on something else, ideally something unrelated to the US presidential election for a while to help you step back and gain a better sense of perspective? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, fun username! I’m still not sure what part of WP:OWN I broke, so I think if I further understand this, that would help the eventual unblock (maybe?). I did not believe that what I was doing was edit warring. What I do understand now is that it should have been discussed before being added back and that was an unnecessary risk I shouldn’t have taken. Especially right after my block, with many admins keeping a close eye. I don’t know why I would stop editing on 2020 elections. I have made a lot of changes to both Biden and Trump endorsement pages as well as removing unsourced content. Not to mention all the additions I’ve made to house, senate, and gubernatorial races. I’m not asking to be unblocked just yet, I’d like clarification first on the article ownership thing. Then I’ll ask BradV for an unblock again. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I explained what I saw as the WP:OWN violation when I said you were "effectively controlling the article against the opposition of others". That is, *you* were making the decisions as to what the article contained, rather than having contested decisions made by consensus. And yes, you were clearly edit warring - reinstating a contested edit without consensus is pretty much the definition of edit warring. (Did you work out what the key word is yet?) As for why you might edit something else for a while, I already told you that too - and I'm not going to keep repeating myself, though that does seems to be necessary to get you to understand something. Anyway, it was just advice - it's up to you what you do with it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, please remain civil with me. I’m only trying to learn, not trying to harm the project in any way. I most definitely do appreciate any advice you can give to me. I have no idea what you mean with the key word thing. But let me clarify, this was considered ownership because I reverted almost all of the edits and added back what I believed was right. For mass edits like that I should have consensus first, right? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

But you have got the key word, you said it in your question! For *any* contested edit, not just mass edits, you should get a consensus. Consensus is possibly the most important key word at Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thesaurus

[7]. That's the second time you've linked a thesaurus to someone. Do you think we're idiots? Do you think we don't understand English? Yes, "oppose" is an antonym of "support". But "does not support" does not mean "oppose". It is possible to neither support nor oppose something. It is possible to criticize someone without opposing them. There are many Republican politicians who regularly criticize Trump but still support him. There are others who haven't offered any support for him but still haven't come out in opposition of him. I've said this to you several times now. Other editors have explained it to you over and over again. You have already been blocked from editing that article, and your edits to the talk page are so repetitive that it's becoming disruptive. Do not ping me again. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Lima Bean Farmer: As you are repeatedly failing to comprehend when people patiently explain simple things to you, and you are continuing your disruption at the article talk page, I have also blocked you from editing Talk:List of Republicans who oppose the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign. You will not edit either the article or the talk page until you make a successful unblock appeal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Boing! said Zebedee, why would you do this? I took the time to work out why I was blocked on my talk page and get an understanding on how what I did was wrong and what not to do again. Then I add a thesaurus link to a talk page and you block me from it? Have you seen the talk page? There are 5 names under “new opposition of people and they all fit the article criteria. I have sourced them and explained their roles and everything, I have no idea why you’d do this. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I have explained why I extended your block, but I'll expand a little further. Above, Red Rock Canyon has explained: "Yes, "oppose" is an antonym of "support". But "does not support" does not mean "oppose". It is possible to neither support nor oppose something." You have had that explained to you several times before - I know, because I was one of the people who explained it. Yet you are still arguing that it is acceptable to include someone as an opposer based on their lack of support. That is in violation of Wikipedia's sourcing requirements (which are especially important in relation to living people per WP:BLP) and WP:SYNTH policy, and it is becoming disruptive. If you wish to be unblocked, then make an unblock request. If the reviewer thinks my reason for extending the block is incorrect, or if they are convinced by any other appeal you might make, they are welcome to revert my action without consulting me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request (10 September 2020)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello! I was blocked from this talk page for the reason of edit warring. I didn’t even know you can edit war on a talk page. I understand why I was blocked from the page itself, also edit warring. While at the time I didn’t realize that reverting once is edit warring, I now realize how to prevent this from happening (use the talk page first). I am currently asking that my block on the talk page be removed. Since this is my second block from that page, I see why I need to take a bit of a break from it, but I was discussing the meaning of the article (I started an rfc) and also have added people who fit the criteria on the talk page, which still have not been added (they fit the criteria, I added sources, and even have added what information can be given when they’re added to to the page). Please remove this block. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were not blocked from editing that talk page on account of edit warring; as such, I am declining this unblock request because it does not address the reasons for your (partial) block. Salvio 15:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Normally, the way to request an unblock would be to use the {{unblock}} template on your talk page, not posting here. But while we're here, I would decline the unblock request; based on your posts to the talk page, you still do not understand the scope of that article, so the block is still needed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Bradv, who imposed the block (which I extended), did say "You may appeal this decision at the administrators' noticeboard". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

That seems a little...harsh, given the whole Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community clause of the banning policy, although I guess I don't know how that clause interacts with partial blocks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: He didn't say "must appeal", so maybe he just meant it's an option because it's only a partial block? But I agree an appeal at AN is perhaps not the wisest move. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Lima Bean Farmer, your block from that talk page is not remotely for edit warring, and I have no idea where you got that from. I clearly explained the reason for extending your block to cover that page at User talk:Lima Bean Farmer#Thesaurus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Boing! said Zebedee, when I click on details to my block, it says that I’m blocked from both pages for edit warring. Please remove this block. Thank you Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    • That is the original reason given by Bradv for your block from the article. I have explained clearly why I extended the block to cover the talk page too - but once again, you demonstrate an apparent inability to comprehend the simplest of things when they are painstakingly explained to you. I decline to lift the block. Also, I'm sorry to say so, but considering how talking to you is so much like talking to the wall, I'm really beginning to think you do not possess the competence to edit Wikipedia at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Boing! said Zebedee, I have been blocked for promotional editing, unsourced editing, copyright violations, and now most recently edit warring. Each of these previous blocks I have improved myself on (I learned how to source edits, I learned what copyright was, I learned what an unacceptable username was) and plan to do the same with edit warring, since I was unfamiliar that one revert was considered edit warring so I will improve on that once my block expires (I believe in a week). However, I have expressed my opinion on this talk page and somehow have been blocked because I added my opinion and a link to a thesaurus which somehow violated Wikipedia:SYNTH. Expressing my opinion on the inclusion of a certain person is not a reason to block someone, in fact I started an rfc to discuss this article. I have commented on individual people too and have added people on the talk page which for some reason you refuse to add. I’ve been friendly with you since you blocked me so I’m not sure why you’re being so harsh on me. I know you think that for inclusion on this page, one must say “I am opposed to the Donald Trump 2020 campaign” but I think this is too harsh of a standard. Using the talk page to express my opinion was the only way I was able to do it and you have now blocked me from this. Once again, I ask you to please remove this block. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
        • And once again, NO! I will not remove the block. DO NOT ASK ME AGAIN. And if you refuse to accept that Wikipedia requires a reliable source explicitly stating someone's political position and that you are not allowed to deduce it for yourself from other things they have said (as has now been explained to you countless times), then nobody else will unblock you either! The requirement for a source that explicitly states someone's political opinion before we can include it in Wikipedia is not negotiable, and nobody cares if you think it harsh. Finally, no, your block does not expire in a week, it is indefinite. You can tell that because it says "with an expiration time of indefinite", and because Bradv said "Your partial block from editing this article is now set to indefinite" right here on this very talk page, in the same message that told you "You may appeal this decision at the administrators' noticeboard". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Unsolicited advice you can ignore if you wish: Lima Bean Farmer, just some unsolicited advice you can ignore, but it is offered with nothing but goodwill. I know there are some topics/articles I should generally stay away from due to various reasons. Some subjects I'm just to close to, others I'm just hopelessly out of step with the consensus. It doesn't matter how right I think I am, editing there is asking for problems. Regardless of the reason, I know its best for me to stay away from them because editing there will only create grief. Even if I win an argument, I know it won't end up a net positive. There are plenty of areas on Wikipedia I can edit without problems and grief. Best wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  14:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Endorsement references

This decision and WP:ENDORSEMENTS Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of New Jersey League of Conservation Voters for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New Jersey League of Conservation Voters 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/New Jersey League of Conservation Voters 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. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Unblock please

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Please unblock me from the list of Republicans who oppose Trump. I have agreed not to edit war, only make additions which fit the criteria and it’s been over two weeks now. Don’t bother contacting the blocking editor, he already said he wouldn’t get involved. Thank you!Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I was sympathetic with you until I read your attacks on a very patient Boing! said Zebedee, who has tried to help you(and has no knowledge of how your iPhone is configured). As noted, edit warring is only part of the issue here. You haven't done as requested and agreed to use explicit citations for claims of support; as such, the block remains valid and I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

• • 331dot, Boing! said Zebedee has not been as patient as you may believe. First, they make an objection to my block and then are not explicit as to what the block was for. I don’t blame them for knowing my iPhone doesn’t show green. However they were unwilling to help or give me a better explanation even after I explained the green thing. Then they asked me to agree to something which I did, and put a condensed version above, but that wasn’t enough for them. I think they are still bitter about some of the disputes we had in the past even though I attempted to move on. Maybe you can give some guidance. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
    • You attacked me in the very same message as you told me your phone did not show the green - you gave me no time at all to offer any further explanation before you started your attacks. You appear to have some sort of comprehension problem which makes it hard for you to understand what most editors understand easily, and you appear to need things explained to you multiple times in very simple terms. I'm willing to go along with that and do the best I can to explain, but I will not do so when you attack me for your comprehension inabilities. Now, if you think everyone else here is wrong and only you are right, make a new unblock request and another admin will review it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I have nothing to add beyond what I have said, and I stand by my review. As noted, you are free to attempt to convince another administrator of your claims. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
        • 331dot, what would you like? I have agreed to use specific citations and be much more careful on additions to the article. Would you like me to be nicer to Boing! said Zebedee? They weren’t that nice to me, but I can try being nice again and hope they follow suit. Please give guidanceLima Bean Farmer (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
          • Please request unblock for another administrator to review; I have no further comment. Thank you 331dot (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Boing! said Zebedee, that was after you attacked me for everything being perfectly laid out but I didn’t see it. If you told me to put that I would be more careful on additions in the box then I would have done that in the beginning. I also covered it very well in my conversation with you. I thought you understood I was going to work on that as well. You clearly did not and decided to stop helping me and have now attacked my comprehension. Why are you trying to ruin this for me? I added the part you asked me to above and you still won’t remove your opposition. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I did not attack you in any way, shape, or form. If you do not think I am competent as an admin, feel free to start a discussion at WP:AN - and if there's a consensus agreeing with you, I will resign. Other that that, I don't want to have any more to do with you and will remove this talk page from my watch list. Do not ping me again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Actually, don't worry about the pings - I've set my notification preferences to ignore them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Do not post at my talk page (unless required to by policy). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
        • I have restored your comment and replied (it's better for the record, I think), and I now see no need for any further interaction between us on this subject. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
          • Boing! said Zebedee, agreed. I hope we can work together on other projects in the future. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• I have explained to you multiple times, the problem is not just edit warring. Here's what I said on my talk page recently: But remember, my extension of your block to cover the talk page was not for edit warring. We need to see no more of you making your own deductions about someone's support or opposition based on anything other than a very clear statement in a reliable source. So no more "He hasn't supported, so he must oppose" stuff, you understand? Remember my words from your talk page: "The requirement for a source that explicitly states someone's political opinion before we can include it in Wikipedia is not negotiable". I oppose any unblock until you stop ignoring that problem, and actually address it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Boing! said Zebedee, I have left a very nice message on your talk page letting you know my future intentions as well as apologizing. While I can try to use my own reasoning to see what opposition is based on the current consensus (use of word oppose, endorse another candidate, etc.), I can not promise that all of my edits will not be reverted. That’s why I promise to use my own judgement based on consensus and if anything is further challenged I will use the talk page to discuss. No one has even reviewed my unblock and you’re already trying to ruin it. I’ve given it quite some time and thought, as well as apologizing and explaining my intentions to all other editors involved. Please don’t try to ruin this for me, deal? If you didn’t block me from the talk page I wouldn’t have to go through all of this. But now I do, so don’t ruin it. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Firstly, I'm not trying to ruin anything, I'm merely trying to protect Wikipedia and uphold policy. I'm only interested in what's best for Wikipedia, not what's best for you. On my talk page, you apologized for edit warring but said nothing whatsoever about the underlying problem, which was your approach of repeatedly making your own deductions based on inadequate sources in violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. While you refuse to commit to not using your own judgment of someone's support/oppose position and instead use only what reliable sources say explicitly, you should not edit that article. It is that simple. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Boing! said Zebedee, “ While you refuse to commit to not using your own judgment of someone's support/oppose position and instead use only what reliable sources say explicitly, you should not edit that article,” what the heck is that supposed to mean. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 08:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
        • That you don't understand what that means is part of the problem. I've explained the problem as clearly as I can (multiple times in different places and apparently without success). I'll leave it to the reviewing admin to decide on the best course of action. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
          • Boing! said Zebedee, you are not being clear. I have agreed to not edit war and use better judgment (based on consensus) of what should and should not be added to this article. If there is something else you would like me to do, then please tell me. What point are you trying to get across that I am missing multiple times? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
            • It's explicitly clear in the green comment above. If you can not understand that, then there's no further help I can give. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
              • Boing! said Zebedee, is “The requirement for a source that explicitly states someone's political opinion before we can include it in Wikipedia is not negotiable” what you’re referring to? I edit on an iPhone and nothing above appears green. How did you become an administrator if you’re not even willing to help out another editor? I was hoping for an apology and then a fresh start but since I’ve tried for an unblock you’ve been very hostile towards me. I have agreed to only make additions that fit the criteria (reliable source, clearly opposition based on the consensus of what opposition is, etc). Do you want me to promise that all my edits will be perfect? I can’t promise someone won’t have an issue with them but I have agreed not to edit war and use the talk page. You are really just trying to ruin this, aren’t you? That page has practically been abandoned. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
                • I'll put aside your comments questioning my suitability as an admin - nobody reading the entirety of this talk page can possibly think I have been unwilling to help! I have not previously seen any commitment from you to "to only make additions that fit the criteria" - it's possible that I might have missed it somewhere, but it needs to be in your unblock request. If you modify your unblock request to include a clear commitment to only use clear reliable sources, to be careful to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and to seek prior consensus if there is any ambiguity, then I will withdraw my opposition to your unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
                  • This is an improvement, but I still see no commitment to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and to seek prior consensus if there is any ambiguity. If you add those, I will withdraw my opposition to your request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Block reason

• As an aside, as you keep responding as if your block is only for edit warring, I have amended the block reason. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Boing! said Zebedee, you’re adding new blocks?!? I haven’t even edited that page in weeks! I am clearly trying to understand what you’re asking from me and you won’t tell me. This is an impossible situation for me. I don’t know how you’re an admin when a user is trying to improve and you don’t help them, just impose additional blocks. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I have *not* added a new block, I have simply amended the block reason (as I said clearly in the block log, and as I just explained here). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Boing! said Zebedee, you have been unwilling to help. I have explained to you at least 3 different times that I will be more careful about my additions, only add based on what the criteria is, and I will follow the consensus on the definition of oppose. You could’ve easily said that you didn’t see that, but no. You rather would have been difficult and claim something was in green (which it isn’t on my screen) and say you weren’t going to help on something when you were the one that didn’t explain it properly, plus I already addressed this. This also doesn’t explain your hostility towards me when I have been respectful and apologetic to you up until 2 posts ago. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Boing! said Zebedee, ”Hello Boing! Said Zeebee! I just wanted to let you know that I have reached out to Brad v for a potential unblock on the article Republicans who oppose Trump re election. If I do get my editing privileges back, I wanted to make sure you knew that I apologize for edit warring and will do whatever I can to stop it from happening again. I’ve been making tons of edits in the past few weeks and avoided any edit wars. Even if I don’t get it back, a formal apology is still in order. Thank you for your time and happy editing!” is the message I left on your page. I have been friendly and apologetic. Maybe you forgot or you just don’t care and this is always how you handle other editors. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 09:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
        • Being friendly and apologetic is not sufficient. For me to support an unblock, I need to be convinced that you properly understand the problems that led to your block (and to my extension of the block to cover the talk page) and that they will not recur. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Unblock please

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).

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

---

Request reason:

All reasons stated above, in addition to my agreement “to use explicit citations for claims of support”. I will follow wikipedia:SYNTH and wikipedia:OR when editing to the best of my abilities. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline as there's another active unblock request later on this page. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

• Whoever reviews this is free to judge it as they see fit without needing to consult me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Perhaps it would be helpful if you were to list the changes you want to make to List of Republicans who oppose the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign, as that is the page you are asking to edit. Please be specific. – bradv🍁 19:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • bradv🍁, why? I don’t want just a few additions that no one will even make (check the talk page of the article, there are still additions I have posted that no one has made). I want to have editing access to the article again. I’ve waited almost a month, apologized to the other editors, and explained what I’ll do differently already. I think I deserve a full unblock, not just a couple of edits. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

    Anyone considering unblocking you is going to want to know that doing so is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. If your proposed contributions are clearly improvements it's much easier for that case to be made. All we have to go by at the moment is your history with that article. – bradv🍁 19:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

    • bradv🍁 Ok, well I am going to add Charlie Crist who is a US representative and served as Governor of Florida as a Republican based on [8]. I will add Robert Zoellick based on [9]. I hope that after asking me to show examples, you consider an unblock yourself. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Endorsements of Biden are not explicit statements of opposition to Trump. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

331dot, “ Republicans who endorsed a different candidate” is explicitly stated on the page as a criteria for addition. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Very well, I stand corrected- though I'm not certain I agree with that criteria(which is, of course, irrelevant to this matter). Thank you 331dot (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC) UTC)

So 331dot, will you consider an unblock? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to leave it to Bradv to decide. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

331dot, Bradv already said he wouldn’t unblock me. Could you please? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see where they have said they wouldn't unblock you ever, only that they wouldn't unblock you based on the information you had provided to that point. I don't speak for Bradv, but I'm pretty sure that's a fair description. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Charlie Crist is a Democrat, which is clearly stated multiple times in that source. – bradv🍁 21:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

bradv🍁, it says “ those who held office as a Republican” and Crist held 4 public positions including governor of Florida as a Republican. Please read the page before claiming that I am wrong. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

331dot, here is the message Brad v posted on his talk page about not unblocking me “Lima Bean Farmer, we've been through this before. Although I'm glad you are apologetic, I'm still not convinced that unblocking you won't result in further disruption. But because I was the one who placed the block, I will leave it to another admin to review. Please place an {{unblock}} request on your talk page and someone will be by shortly.” I kindly ask that you please review my unblock or have a fellow administrator review it as Brad v has made it clear that he will not. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Considering that your source for Charlie Crist is talking about who he's endorsing in the Democratic primary, not the actual Presidential race--he's been a Democrat for 8 years now--I don't think he's at all relevant enough as a Republican to be included in the list of Republicans opposed to Trump. While you're staying within the strict letter of the law, I don't think you're exercising good judgment on this article; you seem far too eager to push as many names in there as possible. I'm inclined to decline this request. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Writ Keeper ⚇♔, you’re declining my request because I want to make additions that fit the article and you personally don’t believe they belong despite it fitting within the criteria? If you disagree with the criteria, that’s one thing, but don’t keep me blocked because I am editing to the criteria which you do not like. This is not about your personal opinion. This is about my proposed additions which conform to the article’s standards. Please unblock Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't declined it, and out of courtesy to you, since you're questioning my motives, I won't. I don't think my motives are out of line or that I'm anything like involved, but I can step aside to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I will not unblock you based on this, though.

Anyway, the problem is not that you want to put people on the list that I don't want on there; I don't care the slightest bit about the list or who's on it. I was honestly surprised to find that Wikipedia even has such a list. The problem is the pattern. You have a pattern of pushing for inclusion of people who are borderline at best, pushing that envelope, and arguing incessantly with people who disagree with you. That's what led to the block. When I look at the examples you gave to convince us that this pattern won't repeat, I would have expected them to be completely straightforward, obvious examples, that would show you're committing to breaking this cycle of controversy. This is not that. And then you continue arguing it, just as you have before. The pattern hasn't changed, so to me it looks like the block is still necessary. The whole point of blocks and unblcoks is to minimize disruption to Wikipedia, and it looks to me like unblocking you would not minimize disruption; it looks like we'd be back at this cycle of neverending talk page disputes again pretty much immediately. That's the only reason I'm not unblocking you.

Honestly, I don't know why this one page is this important to you. Like, I completely get your frustration that you're blocked, but this is the only page on the literally millions of pages on Wikipedia that you can't edit. And believe me, I know how polarizing this election is, but this seems like such a...trivial part of it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Writ Keeper ⚇♔, but they are both examples that fit the inclusion. The reason I was blocked was for not following the criteria, not for arguing. The additions I suggested here follow the criteria. Currently there are many people who fit this criteria and belong on this list and no one has added them. If you really didn’t care who is on this list, then you’d unblock me and leave it between me and others who care about the article have a debate on content on the talk page. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Euryalus, thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome, but you might not wish to thank me until you've read my proposal below. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Unblock please

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Ok, I want to be unblocked from List of Republicans who oppose the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign and it’s talk page. Here, I will address the block and everyone’s concerns they have had with it. First, I was blocked due to edit warring. How will this improve? I just won’t edit war. There’s not really much I can do here to prove that. However, if one of my edits is reverted, I will use the talk page if a discussion needs to occur. If an argument is getting really heated, I will step back from it for a little while. If it doesn’t seem like a consensus is coming together, there is always Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Next up is Wikipedia:No original research. I think this was mainly due to me adding things that say “don’t support” or “won’t endorse” as oppose, which obviously I will not do anymore. As a bigger picture I will make sure additions of living persons are explicit and if I think there might be some controversy, I will discuss the addition on the talk page before I make it. As for wikipedia:SYNTH, same reasons as above. I never really used more than one article to prove a point but I will keep that in mind for the future as well and make sure I don’t do that. As for the blocking administrators, they have stated that they would not get involved in the issue again for any reason, so there is no need to ask them (or you can if you’d like to confirm that they have no objections). The admin who rejected my first unblock request also said they would not get involved again. I have been asked to provide examples which I have above. Here are some more though. Carey Hart, based on this article [10] Amanda Carpenter, based on [11] Susan Del Percio, based on [12] As well as others as they come up. This however shows an array of additions I will add to contribute to this article. Is there something I’m missing? Please let me know. The election is in less than 3 weeks so please don’t say “wait 6 months” because that would be meaningless. I have already waited over a month and made very useful contributions since. To be clear, these were on articles about both living persons and elections such as endorsement articles, which are very similar to this one. I have not been blocked or had any other major issues. Also, please don’t say “there are plenty of other articles to edit.” If there is something else that you would like me to understand/show/say, I’d be happy to do it, but I think I have demonstrated enough competency to edit this article. Please help out! Thank you for your time! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per discussion below, for talkpage access only. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that you wait at least three weeks because you are clearly all wound up about the election. This article will presumably be here for a very long time, and you can work to improve it dispassionately once the election is over. Please do not bring this type of thing to the Teahouse, which is a place to ask and answer questions about basic editing procedures. It is not a venue for lobbying to get your block on one article lifted. Go edit some uncontroversial articles for a while. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it, I must agree that I was wound up about the election. However, I haven’t edited this article in over a month and a half and have been editing other pages about this election without any controversy. After a break, I decided to apply to get unblocked, which is what I’m doing now. If you think I’m just ranting because I’m wound up, that’s not true. I’m just addressing all of the issues that were brought up so that there wouldn’t be any controversy on an unblock. I didn’t say that the article is going to go away, but only being able to edit it after the election doesn’t seem that helpful either. No one has even made a significant contribution (other than a photo) in 3 days. I hope you will reconsider, thank you for your time! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I saw your post at the Teahouse and instead of commenting there, I thought it would be better to post my thoughts here. I know you posted Also, please don’t say “there are plenty of other articles to edit.” above, but there are over six million other articles on Wikipedia and many need improving; so, it's not so clear why it's an absolute imperative for you to be able to edit this particular article at the moment. This is more of a mini-WP:TOPICBAN than a full-fledged WP:BLOCK and it will be lifted in due course once the community feels things have settled down; at the same time, even an unintentional slip up on your part may led to your account actually being blocked from editing any articles. Perhaps an administrator would be willing to let you use the article's talk to make WP:EDITREQUESTs so that you can show them that you've learned from your mistakes and don't intend to repeat them. In other words, you agree for some certain period of time to not directly edit the article, but rather only to make constructive edit requests or contributions on its talk page. Anything else will lead to either an immediate restoration of the topic ban or even a block. Would that be a workable option for you? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly, no one is giving any options to me. I can’t make requests on the talk page or edit the article or anything to do with it. Even when I could edit the talk page I made requests which were never fulfilled or rejected (you can still see them under title “New Opposition”). It’s clear that I am being ignored. I am intent on editing this article because I genuinely have the means to edit it, but no one’s given me a chance for over a month. I have been very patient with everyone’s suggestions on things I should address and examples I should give and I’m still willing to do that if there’s something I should add. I just want this block to be lifted already Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe that it is unlikely that any administrator will lift this block before the election. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it, why? What could I do or show you to make you see that I am competent enough to edit this article? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

We can continue this conversation in three weeks. Your determination to edit this article now indicates to me that you are motivated by a desire to somehow influence the election. If that is not the case, you should be happy to have the chance to edit the article after the election is over. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it, influence the election? I don’t even edit Wikipedia with a computer, I don’t know how I’d influence an election in the second largest democracy in the world. I am just intent on the proper information being added to this page which is not. Everyone is so intent on blocking me yet they have never edited this page and I have made dozens if not over a hundred additions with maybe 6 that were improper and deleted. And don’t say “you’re claiming ownership” because I most certainly am not. There is something to be said though, when an editor makes many contributions to an article and is blocked and the article becomes almost ignored. Can’t you see the additions I suggest above? I’m clearly not trying to maliciously add names to influence an election. I had to laugh typing that because it’s crazy that this is where the conversation has turned. So, once again, I will ask, very directly, what more can I do to show you and the Wikipedia community to show you that I am ready to edit this article again? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 Cullen328, especially since LBF is also continually adding dozens of entries sourced to blogs, campaign affiliated sites and the like to List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

What you need to do is drop the stick, move on, work on other articles, and wait until after the election is over. Please do not contact me again until November 4 at the earliest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it, this is what I’ve done for the past month and a half. Why would you not even consider unblocking me from the talk page? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, do not ping me again or contact me in any way until November 4. I hope that's clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)LBF, you're beating a dead horse. I can understand where you're coming from, and maybe an admin will eventually grant you access to the article talk page, but it's not something you can pressure them into doing. Zindor (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lima Bean Farmer! The commitment not to edit war is noted, thank you. Am not as convinced re OR/SYNTH, especially in the heat of an election campaign where reliable sourcing can become submerged in claim and counterclaim. Would you formally agree to a restriction like that suggested by Marchjuly, to propose edits to this article using editrequest on its talkpage? This would give an opportunity for neutral third-party review before they go live. If not I understand: edit requests can be irritatingly slow to get actioned. However, without something like this the risk of further OR/SYNTH issues seems a bit high, and from an abundance of caution a general unblock is more likely to come through on the day after election day. Let me know what you think - if you decline this suggestion and would like an unblock on the day after the election, ping me to remind me and I'll do it as soon as the polls close.

And in passing (just in case it needs saying) I'm not an American and don't really care who wins. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually I've just read upwards to discover that Bradv directed appeal requests to WP:AN. If you agree to the above restriction I'd be happy to propose it at AN for you. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Euryalus, thank you so much for spending so much time on my case! Yes, I most definitely would agree to this case. While I am an American (not an eligible voter) and do care about who wins the election, I try to keep the edits I make on Wikipedia unbiased. I have contributed to pages about both Joe Biden and Donald Trump and even some edits to Jo Jorgensen and Howie Hawkins. That’s why it bothers me that no one has been updating this article on a regular basis. Once again, I appreciate that you have been spending so much time on this! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Euryalus, an unblock template is fine too. It was pointed out at AN that if the request gets declined, this would turn into a community ban – and that was not my intent when directing them to AN. – bradv🍁 04:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Bradv, and hi Lima Bean Farmer. No worries re time; I'm supposed to be studying so coming here was an excuse to put the pen down. Never heard of the people you mention above so I had to look them up - if you've got spare time the Howie Hawkins article seems in serious need of a copyedit. On topic, and just to spell it out in full for the formality of it: In the spirit of (say) Halloween, I'm happy to do an unblock for "List of Republicans who oppose the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign" the basis that:

• you post suggested edits and relevant source links to the talkpage as you've done in the past, so that other editors can review the proposed addition and make the edit directly, rather than you editing the article itself; and
• you satisfy yourself on the difference between "opposed to" and "spoke out against," as one doesn't necessarily follow the other in the context of the article.

On point 1 you might also get faster attention to these suggested edits if you use the editrequest template. But up to you. If you agree to this, the entire elaborate construct will also expire on the day after the US election day and become just a regular unblock. Let me know what you think. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Euryalus and bradv! I am not necessarily sure I completely understand what you’re proposing but I appreciate it no matter what. The part with the definition of oppose I completely understand and agree to. What I am not sure is if you’re planning on unblocking me from the talk page now or after the election. Could you please specify? Thank you. And good luck with your studies Euraylus! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, unblocking from the talkpage now, so you can post suggested edits (and associated sources) there for others to review. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Euryalus, of course I’d agree to that! And yes, I promise everything will be sourced and conform to the definition of “oppose”. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Done, then. Kept the block on the article but removed for talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Euryalus, thank you so much for taking the time to review! Happy editing Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Lima Bean Farmer: Now that you've been given a second chance, please try to make the most of it. Understand that whatever you post on that talk page is almost certainly going to be highly scrutinized. This might not seem fair, but it is what it is. Any edit requests you make might take some time for others to respond to (I suggest you read through WP:ER to understand what makes a good edit request.), but you need to allow the process time to work and understand that those answering edit requests are volunteers like you and they're not going to bother trying to help you if stray too far outside the lines and make things difficult for them. So, be patient and try to keep WP:COOL when you post. Bascially, you've been given some WP:ROPE; if you repeat the same mistakes as before, the community response is likely not going to be very forgiving. Good luck. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly, that's good advice. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lima Bean Farmer. Further to the above, the additions at List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements do resemble the ones for which you were previously partially blocked: lots of sourcing to blogs, sites like Medium.com. As such they're fairly obvious breaches of WP:ENDORSE. Appreciate you've posted an RfC on the topic of independent sourcing there, but at least for now the wording of that content guideline stands. This plus the hyper-importance of WP:BLP, make the edits unsupportable. Regardless of how the ANI thread works out you really need to adhere to the sourcing requirements per the content guidelines stand. If you can't/don't want to do this fine, but you'll end up either topic banned or simply blocked from editing.

The ANI thread would be a good place to respond when you have the chance. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

3 month topic ban from post-1932 American politics

You have been sanctioned for disruptive editing.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at AP2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)