User talk:Eternal Father

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hoaxed (2019 Film) (April 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Amkgp was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hoaxed (2019 Film) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Hoaxed (2019 Film), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Amkgp (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Eternal Father! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Amkgp (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Due to past disruptive behavior, Roger Stone is under discretionary sanctions. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, edits to this article include special restrictions. When editing that article, a banner is shown across the top which explains this. Per that banner, If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit. I encourage you to self-revert your edit and start a discussion on the article's talk page. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Roger Stone shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 being blocked from editing—especially, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Your understanding or lack thereof isn't my problem: that the article is under discretionary sanctions with the one-revert rule in effect is yours. Try that again and you can be blocked. --Calton | Talk 23:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It's been posted to the talk page.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hoaxed (2019 Film) (April 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bilorv were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hoaxed (2019 Film) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Hoaxed (2019 Film), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

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 Doug Weller talk 09:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Investigative journalism, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Doug Weller talk 09:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Project veritas logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Project veritas logo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 18:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Your recent editing history at Roger Stone shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Roger Stone. You have added your preferred material to the article four straight times. That means you have already violated WP:3RR and could have been blocked for it. If you do it again, you definitely will be. MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi. Remember that WP:Edit summaries should summarize the edit, not address other editors, as in "You need to start a discussion on the talk page before removing content, or at least provide an un-biased reason. This is turning into to an edit-war." I'm sure you know this, but just weren't thinking of it. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein

From the editing notice on the page

You must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged, you are responsible for checking compliance and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page.

So, would like to revert now and get consensus, or do you want to have that discussion after you get back from your inevitable block? --Calton | Talk 01:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Mike Cernovich

You need to start a discussion on the talk page before removing content, or at least provide an un-biased reason.

That's not right, that's not even wrong. The burden lies -- both by common sense and by Wikipedia policy and practice -- with the the editor making the change. You.

This is turning into to an edit-war.

No, it IS an edit war. And you're the edit warrior. --Calton | Talk 01:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yet another warning

This time against canvassing, which we define as attempts to attract editors with a specific POV to discussions. I'm also going to suggest that adding prominent coverage (infobox and category level) to reserve service at low ranks in order to promote your pet figures is going to lead to more issues for you. Guy (help!) 22:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Guy Why is it included in Steve Bannon? What is your justification for that? Eternal Father (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Eternal Father, the existence of crap in one article doesn't justify its inclusion in others. Guy (help!) 00:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: This user yet again] simply restored WP:SYNTH content to an article that had been challenged without any attempt at discussion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It's in the Joe Biden article. Why are you not challenging it there? Eternal Father (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Because your behavior is concerning. Why are you restoring WP:SYNTH content without discussing it on the talk page? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I saw it in the main Joe Biden article, and noticed that the Joe Biden section lacked relevant context regarding other allegations. I didn't see any such mention of it when glancing through the 20+ sections of the talk page (of the allegation article), so if it was discussed on there, or if someone had already attempted to add that in there in the edit history, I must have missed it, and had no intention of "restoring" something. As for the synth, My understanding is that those sources confirm that sentence, so what part of Synth are you questioning for that sentence and those sources?

Arbitration enforcemenmt

I have raised this on WP:AE. Guy (help!) 09:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

EF, please move your reply to my statement at AE to the section designated for your statement. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

You are now subject to an Arbitration Enforcement topic ban from all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people

The following sanction now applies to you:

indefinite topic ban from all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#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. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mikki Willis

The article Mikki Willis has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Note

Please note that Plandemic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is considered to fall within the sphere of post-1932 American politics, broadly construed, so is within the scope of your topic ban. Guy (help!) 12:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)