User talk:Birtig

Welcome!

Hi, Birtig. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Just a friendly notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Hi, Birtig - I saw your comment here, and just wanted to make sure you didn't have any questions about the discretionary sections at most of our articles relating to post-1932 US politics. Don't hesitate to contact me on my TP if you have any questions. Happy editing! ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

This is the second time (first time) you have reverted challenged material without discussion on the talk page, in clear violation of the discretionary sanctions alert you previously received. Please self-revert your violation immediately. If you feel strongly about using Wikipedia's voice to call undocumented immigrants "illegal", please start a talk page discussion and seek a consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump racial views

Hello Birtig.

I see that you added the word "only" with the edit summary that you felt it did not change the meaning of the text. This is a very sensitive article and nearly all the text has been much-debated. In this case, I believe that this addition of "only" does indeed change the meaning of the text by shifting the emphasis. I'd like to ask you please to revert your edit and -- if this is important to you -- please to seek consensus on the article talk page for this edit. Thanks! SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Your article is would be a great candidate for Did You Know. DYK is the easiest and funnest way to get your creation on the Main Page and in front of the eyeballs of 17 million people. More info here "DYK For Newbies." I'd like to take this opportunity to invite you to join other people who edit conservatism-related articles at WikiProject Conservatism! A friendly and fun place where group members can meet new colleagues and get answers to burning questions. I hope to see you there! – Lionel^(talk) 07:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Both Lives Matter

On 1 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Both Lives Matter, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Both Lives Matter ran an advertising campaign in 2017 with billboards featuring the headline "100,000 people are alive today because of our laws on abortion. Why change that?" The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Both Lives Matter. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Both Lives Matter), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bun-sgoil Ghàidhlig Phort Righ

The article Bun-sgoil Ghàidhlig Phort Righ has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No claim to notability, fails WP:GNG. Please see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ifnord (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Immigration policy of Donald Trump

Please explain why you should not be sanctioned for violating consensus-required as detailed by Scjessey here. You've had the appropriate warnings and notifications. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Apologies. My edits have all been intended to be constructive. The article is about the 'Immigration Policy of Donald Trump' so it appeared helpful, when I came across the bit referring to the period 2009 to 2014, to clarify that this was not related to Trump's presidency. I don't understand how that is pushing a point of view - it appeared to me to be simply adding helpful, and factual, information. I later tried to help improve the article by helping to explain the 'zero tolerance' policy: the key change is that all those who cross illegally are now detained and prosecuted. Why that clarification is not helpful is beyond me. I do apologise for adding the same detail - about the period 2009 to 2014 being under Obama's presidency - because I didn't realise it was the same article that I had already added the detail to (it didn't occur that it would have been deleted as I assumed it was helpful and factual clarification.) I have also edited some of the articles relating to Crimea and it is quite common for similar information to appear in different articles so I sometime add the same edit in more than one article. I thought something similar had happened here as I didn't think my change would be objected to. Anyway, I can only apologise: punish me in whatever way you think fair and I will accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birtig (talk • contribs) 22:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

All right. Just be extra careful when you edit these articles. Sooner or later (sooner, probably) violating editing restrictions is going to get you sanctioned even if the violation is inadvertent. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your understanding. I will try to be more careful.Birtig (talk • contribs)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Illegal immigration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Migration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Birtig. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peterhead Academy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Sampson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Alert

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 recently 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I want to thank you for creating Angel Families. I just discovered that page, and the list of names. Have you thought about creating a page on the Murder of Christy Sue Piña? E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Revision on First Liberty Institute Article

Hi Birtig, I am reaching out to you to talk about the First Liberty Institute article.

Can you re-attempt an action you made on 18:45, 25 December 2018 regarding removing the label: Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United States?

Birtig talk contribs‎ 17,891 bytes -72‎ reverted as this is not the organization's agenda, which is to defend 'religious liberty' even if that should clash with 'LGBT rights' undothank Tag: Undo

It looks like the tag is still on the article. Thank you. Let me know if you need anything. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Why are you removing legitimate edits and also source material from talk pages? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Racial views of Donald Trump; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Please undo your latest edits and discuss your concerns on the article talk page.

SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I've done as you ask. Sorry. Birtig (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

That's good. You can be sure that others will try to consider your views, even if they are not ultimately accepted there. SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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

Discretionary Sanctions warnings

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 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.

SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

DS Violation

You have violated the 24-hour BRD page restriction at Racial views of Donald Trump with these edits: [1] [2]. Please undo your reinsertion and follow the requirement of talk page discussion. Thanks. @Awilley:

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	You speak very calmly when I would otherwise shout. Sergeant Davin (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Grayfell

Hi there,

I've noticed that you've become embroiled in a rather contrived argument about whether or not it is okay to refer to people who have illegally immigrated as illegal immigrants. I am currently stuck in a similar debate over the meaning of the word "man". The user who started these debates is User:Grayfell, and they have a long history of attempting to enforce the use of their preferred terminology.

During the course of your debate, they made the statement: "I think it might be worth starting a more centralized discussion on this terminology." This implies that they intend to embark on a coordinated effort to whitewash Wikipedia to suit their agenda.

That's a very ominous proposition in my opinion. What are your thoughts on this?

BoiledAlaska (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

While I appreciate the ping to notify me of this discussion, I think both of you should consider WP:CANVASS very carefully before continuing with this. Grayfell (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Grayfell, that is exactly what I am trying to prevent: This entire conversation is about your comment: "I think it might be worth starting a more centralized discussion on this terminology.". It sounds like you are trying to recruit like-minded people to your cause.

Hi BoiledAlaska, like you, I 100% support the consensus building approach that Wikipedia uses to resolve disputes and think that all editors need to accept that building consensus to make significant changes may be a very long process and may not result in their preferred outcome. That said, every editor is entitled to make changes and, if reverted, to seek to persuade other editors so that a consensus may be build for the change they propose. So long as editors accept that change requires consensus, those attempts are not disruptive. Have a good day :) Birtig (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I have noticed an uptick in users pushing their preferred definitions of words on to articles, sometimes to tar public figures such as TenNapel, and other times to whitewash crimes that they happen to approve of. I suspect Grayfell is part of coordinated effort to push their particular views on to Wikipedia in this way, as he implied in the comment above.

Please let me know if you see any more evidence of this, and I will keep my eye out also.

BoiledAlaska (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)