User talk:Maslowsneeds

How Do I Look

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article How Do I Look, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. -- WebHamster 01:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Suzannah B. Troy

The article Suzannah B. Troy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet our standards for notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. NW (Talk) 21:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Eleanor Humes Haney for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Eleanor Humes Haney, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Humes Haney until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Maslowsneeds. You have new messages at Courcelles's talk page.
Message added 03:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File permission problem with File:Suzannah-B-Troy.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Suzannah-B-Troy.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Maslowsneeds. You have new messages at Ron Ritzman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination of Aam Aadmi Sena for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aam Aadmi Sena 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/Aam Aadmi Sena until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Shrikanthv (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you want to break India up into many smaller countries?

Do you want to break India up into many smaller countries?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean ? I'm sorry, but you're not being clear. Maslowsneeds (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you wish to see India break up into several smaller countries?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

When you can't argue based on facts, you create red herrings and/or go to ad hominem attacks by either accusing people of waiving the ISIS flag or now engaging in sedition. Why can't you focus on the merits of your amendments ? Maslowsneeds (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zizi Jeanmaire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yves Saint Laurent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-neutrally worded RfC

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz

hello there - please be aware, wikileaks is not a wp:rs wikipedia reliable source, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

hi @Govindaharihari: The link was included in the DWS article as a primary souce. See WP:PRIMARY. maslowsneeds🌈 19:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikileaks is an illegal source - end of _Govindaharihari (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Where does it say in wp:rs or in WP:PRIMARY that WikiLeaks is a banned source ? Please help correct the record. maslowsneeds🌈 20:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources -

wikileaks is not a wp:rs - Govindaharihari (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note

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 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.

Template:Z33 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Also note that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, which you've edited recently, is under a WP:1RR restriction, meaning one revert per editor per 24 hour period (see the information box at the top of Talk:Debbie Wasserman Schultz). Your two most recent reverts ([1], [2]) are consecutive and count as a single revert, but you also reverted earlier today. Please consider self-reverting the recent edits. clpo13_(talk) 23:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the record. maslowsneeds🌈 00:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 10:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Your recent editing history at Hillary Clinton 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 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 your 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. Scjessey (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Scjessey has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You cannot accuse me of edit warring with a single reversion in a 24-hour period as a retaliation for being templated yourself. Scjessey (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Peace

You're right of course. But I can't really join in on the discussion so close to the elections, especially after having talk page visits from 2 ArbCom members. I hope that you'll find the equanimity to do what's probably right on the eve of the election, which may be to let it go, for now. A lot of us saw. Let's try not to all get banned. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

To enforce an arbitration decision and for "edits that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior", you have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Doug Weller talk 17:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. maslowsneeds🌈 21:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There is no indication Maslowsneeds will accept any responsibility for their actions, which are a clear violation of the 1RR Discretionary Sanctions on the Hillary Clinton article. Instead they are blaming other editors and administrators in a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If this continues after the block expires, further blocks of longer duration are inevitable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:55, 7 November 2016 (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.

maslowsneeds🌈 21:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Because I questioned the flaming warning by a pro-Hillary editor, I get blocked ? Doesn't this prove the culture of retaliation and hostility that I was questioning ?maslowsneeds🌈 21:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Maslowsneeds, you have a very serious case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. You are not listening to what people are telling you. You have been told, multiple times, what you were doing wrong. Two things: you inserted information into the article which you knew was against consensus, and you did it a second time in violation of the 1RR restriction. When people warn you about this, they are not "flaming" you; they are informing you, letting you know that you are breaking rules, and that it could get you blocked. If you had actually read and listed to the warnings you got, you would not be blocked now. If you had not gone running to ANI with a complaint against someone who gave you a perfectly valid warning, you would probably not be blocked now. Wikipedia has rules. They are spelled out very clearly. If you violate the rules, people warn you so that you can stop doing it before you get into trouble. If you don't listen to the warnings and keep doing it, you do get into trouble. End of story. --MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Please, you are one of the people, who are gatekeeping the Clinton articles. By coming to my talk page and screaming in all caps, you are proving the kind of retaliation that you wage against people, who make edits in good faith to articles, which are gate-keeping. This is bullying. Is that how they teach you to smother other editors, to get your way, to keep your edits ?maslowsneeds🌈 22:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This is an administrator you are talking about. You are walking on thin ice and on the verge of falling. Your attitude toward other users is repulsive, accusing everyone of bullying, intimidation, harassment, etc. It's clear that you were warned by multiple editors about your behaviour and in retaliation claim false accusations and run to ANI when things don't go your way. If this is the way you act, you won't last on Wikipedia. You must learn to collaborate and cooperate regardless of the circumstances and article. I suggest that you drop the stick about this whole "gate keeping" and focus on improving your behaviour rather than pointing the finger at others when, in fact, you were at fault. You were warned and chose to ignore it. That is your fault, not MelanieN's, Ad Orientum (sp?), the user you reported at ANI (forgot username) or anybody else. You refuse to hear the truth. Enough is enough. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You came to my talk page to pile on the harassment ?maslowsneeds🌈 02:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you believe that including her religion is critical of Clinton or is necessary to "gatekeeping the Clinton articles with Wikipedia's consent on the eve of elections, so you can get your candidate to win" [3]. But when an article is 1RR, breaking it when you've been warned is pretty much a guaranteed block. The only exception would be something very serious like removing a copyvio or clearcut BLP violation (or getting lucky).

As always the case on wikipedia (or for that matter the rest of the world), talking about how wrong others were is not going to help your case. Even if they were seriously in the wrong, this doesn't help you much since you were still in the wrong by breaking the simple bright line of 1RR.

As for your comment here [4], it sounds like you still have a misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. By and large admins don't have an exclusive right to decide who is right and who is wrong. Every wikipedia editor can. And for that reason there's no really any place, not even AN//I where you can go to get the opinion of only admins.

In fact framing it as who is right and who is wrong is probably excessively adversarial anyway. The question is, who is behaving in such a way to negatively affect wikipedia and what, if anything, should be done about it. (Content disputes don't belong on AN//I, so the question of who is right in a content dispute doesn't even arise.) You need to respect the opinion of other experience editors as much as you respect admin opinion. I appreciate there is some gray area here because DS and arbcom enforcement, but even there the opinion of other editors is generally taken into account.

Finally if you feel that WP:Consensus is wrong, you generally need to establish that before hand rather than simply editing because "fallacy that inclusion violates policy". Remember since consensus needs to be policy based, it should be trivial to overturn any supposed consensus that violates policy. If you can't do so, perhaps your understanding of policy isn't correct. Either way, since wikipedia operates by consensus, if you're nearly the only one who feels something is against policy, even if you are correct, you're never likely to be seen as in the right when you go against a consensus that it isn't against policy.

If you feel that this is harassment, I'm sorry.

Consider however that you've only been blocked for 31 hours. You likely will be back if you want to. If you want to stick around, you need to understand why you've had so many problems so far. And even for someone who is opposed to Clinton (which I admit I'm not really) but understands how wikipedia works, it's easy to see that you've handled this wrong. Actually you should consider that as long as those who see things different behave in similar fashions, things are never going to change.

P.S. I see that you've been topic banned from American politics. Maybe that will be enough to prevent future problems. But you still should try and understand why you went about this wrong, since ultimately it will help you succeed here on wikipedia.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

You came here just to pile on the harassment, proving my point. It's apparent that Wikipedia sanctions arbitrary and capricious sanctions and threats by biased editors, who are, indeed, gatekeeping articles. I object to this treatment. The more editors, who come to this page to harass me on top of the ban, in failed attempts to justify the ban, proves my point.maslowsneeds🌈 09:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

No, he was giving you good advice. The only point you are making is that you don't understand why you were blocked and then banned, which doesn't bode well. Try reading it gain with an open mind. Doug Weller talk 12:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

You came here to rub it in that you banned me. You must get some sick sense of enjoyment out of this. I guess this is the culture you must defend, since this is the culture you reinforce ?maslowsneeds🌈 13:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages related to post-1932 American politics and closely related people, broadly construed. Please consult WP:TBAN to see what topic banned means.

You have been sanctioned for persistent disruptive editing and WP:BLP violations in this area, and personal attacks towards other users in the process of editing it.

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. Bishonen | talk 23:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen | talk 23:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC).

Please stop posting on this page while the user is blocked

Maslowsneeds is clearly getting more and more angry and shooting himself in the foot on this page. But I haven't seen him post other than in response to others. Please, everybody, stop posting here while the user is blocked. (Only a few hours more.) Blocked users are generally irritable and unlikely to be receptive to advice. It may be good advice, but since it's invariably received as provocation, please just stop. And revoking his talkpage access, as has been suggested,[5] while presumably letting other people continue to post, is not an option IMO. Bishonen | talk 16:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC).

All this harassment is transparent to everybody visiting this public page.--maslowsneeds🌈 17:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

People have read the harassing comments posted on my talk page

On day Louis Flores was banned, approximately 300 page views were registered on his talk page.

I was retaliated against for making edits that needed to be made. The pro-Clinton editors won the battle against me, but you lost sight of the war that was the election. You thought you could deceive the voters and independent-minded Wikipedia contributors, and you were wrong.maslowsneeds🌈 18:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I sent out newsletters about this on Monday and Tuesday, and that, no doubt, contributed to the spike in traffic for two days.maslowsneeds🌈 19:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

On the second day of Louis Flores' ban, another 300 page views were registered on his talk page.

• Dear Maslowneeds, I am wondering if you understand what your topic ban means--it extends to all pages on the project, including this here talk page: please see WP:TBAN, and realize that by making this talk page like a forum, you are spreading the disruption for which you were topic-banned in the first place. I don't know if someone told you explicitly that "Shillary", besides not funny, is also a serious BLP violation, not to mention a grade-school level attempt at insult; it's therefore covered by our BLP policy, by the BLP discretionary sanctions, and of course by the US politics post-1932 sanctions, and if you use it again ([6]), or any such terminology as "pro-Clinton editors" (above), I will block you indefinitely, regardless of newsletters. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• • And to be clear, I blocked you because of the "Shillary" comment. I would also have blocked someone for similar "Frump" comments. I noticed that you haven't edited anything else but this talk page recently, are you aware that your block expired a day and a half ago? I wouldn't want you to think you are still blocked. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• • • Indefinite can mean two days or until the sun consumes the earth. What would it take Doug Weller talk, Drmies (talk) for this user to see their editing privileges restored? SashiRolls (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Huh? Maslowsneeds has their editing privileges, if they care to use them. Doug Weller only blocked them for 31 hours, which has now expired as Doug just mentioned above. Please check facts before hitting Save, SashiRolls. Bishonen | talk 16:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC).
        • I'm referring to the Topic ban in post-1932 US politics. What would it take for you Bishonen the ArbCom members to reconsider this remarkable decision? SashiRolls (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
          • Of all the American politics bans I've placed, that was in my opinion one of the least remarkable. I won't reconsider it. What Maslowsneeds can do to get it reconsidered by either the community, or a plurality of uninvolved admins, or arbcom, is to follow the instructions here, i.e. post an appeal on either WP:AN, WP:AE, or WP:ARCA. Bishonen | talk 16:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC).

(edit conflict) ****@SashiRolls: Or to put it another way, good behavior in other parts of the encyclopedia for 6 months would make reconsideration much more likely - actively editing other articles without complaints. See this March 5th edit summary accusing another editor of vandalism. There's more problematic behavior going further back. Then there's the reaction above. That sort of reaction isn't encouraging. But all is not lost, many topic banned editors go off and edit peacefully in other areas and are able later to have their topic bans removed. It isn't a remarkable decision and this is not the place to argue that it is. I'm only responding to make it clear that it can indeed be rescinded if the editor's behavior shows that they are unlikely to transgress again. Please don't reply here. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

More people came to read my talk page. Traffic has certainly peaked, but enough of the right people have definitely seen what has happened.maslowsneeds🌈 15:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Another 300 page views were registered on Louis Flores' talk page over the course of several days following the bans.

They're waging war on you

Look, you’re a good guy, but they’ve targeted you. Now they are going to stalk, delete, vandalize and generally terrorize you, ‘round the clock. That’s their m.o. You have the choice of: 1. Changing your username; 2. Leaving WP altogether; or 3. Taking them on via ArbCom, or some other bureaucratic entity. But don’t let them waste your time. They are sadists who live for that. Been there. Best of luck. 2604:2000:9046:800:DDDE:8915:FDD9:2BD5 (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Your comment was deleted then reverted by somebody else. Scary how that can happen to messages other people leave on my talk page. I will give it some thought.--maslowsneeds🌈 11:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

No need. That was me reverting in error, big thumbs on my iPad. It wasn't two people, and it was an accident. Didn't you read my edit summary? Doug Weller talk 14:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you curating my talk page at 3:30 a.m. in the morning ?maslowsneeds🌈 14:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Now that's a really weird question. I'm not curating your talk page at any o'clock. And my edits were at 7:45 am and 5 minutes later, no :30 for either. So why are you asking about 3:30 - even a time zone problem can't turn up a nn:30 time. Doug Weller talk 14:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Fake news website, you may be blocked from editing. Violations of WP:SYNTH and No Original Research. With edit [7]. Per comments by Calton [8] and Neutrality [9]. Sagecandor (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I object to how you are besmirching me. I am not adding original research, I just reverted what looked like a wrongly-made deletion of an underlying edit that I did not make. I had no role in the underlying edit that was made, so I am not the author of the edit. I was only trying to restore it. And it was not disruptive, because the underlying edit had every good faith appearance of belonging on the fake news article. The underlying edit still appears that it should be included in the article, despite how you are trying to unfairly characterise everything in retrospect with malice. maslowsneeds🌈 17:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

In addition, [10] seems to be a direct violation of sanction by Bishonen at [11]. Sagecandor (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I saw this little tempest when I got back from work. Here is the l-o-n-g diff to my response to the same warning on my page. You should be aware that this new user has posted to Bishonen's talk page without pinging you. Since I assume she'll come pay you a visit, I would ask you both to read that response, indicating that i / we have no wish to edit war on this media studies page, just legitimate questions about the fine line behind fake news, satire, clickbait and spin: the innocence of media, etc. (questions that many on the talk page are raising in one way or another). Now, I need a wiki-nap, so I can work, but I appreciate your help in reminding people this is not about politics. I'm puzzled by sage's behavior and short edit history, I must admit, but those he cites seem to find it normal, so, who are we to judge? SashiRolls (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, Maslowsneeds. This edit certainly did violate your topic ban "from all pages related to post-1932 American politics and closely related people, broadly construed". Per WP:TBAN, which I have already urged you to read, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise. A section entitled "Further role in 2016 U.S. presidential election" is obviously related to the topic of American politics. It makes not the slightest difference that you didn't compose the text in the first place, but "merely" restored an "underlying" (?) edit. Just don't edit things like that. I will let you off with a warning since it's your first violation, but please be more careful in future or you will be blocked. Sagecandor didn't "besmirch" you or "flame" you, they gave you a reasonable warning in a civil manner. @SashiRolls: what you say here has no relevance to Maslowsneeds' violation of his topic ban. He simply doesn't get to edit American politics. Bishonen | talk 18:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC).

OK. Have to say that this proliferation of sages is just reminding me of the Je Suis Charlie meme, but if you don't want to do a whois: type search on this latest skilly sage, I suppose that's your prerogative. As we say in French sometimes: "la sagesse n'est rien d'autre qu'une blessure guerie" (wisdom is nothing other than a healed wound). Peace. (Maslowsneeds is a great user name, by the way)SashiRolls (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not violate any topic ban, because fake news has nothing to do with politics, this is about journalism ethics. maslowsneeds🌈 19:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

News media is an industry. The subject of news media and the subject of the reversion of the edits was about business or business ethics.

The edit has this in the text: " sought to influence the 2016 American election:" and you are topic banned from the subject. Now you've been told twice. Doug Weller talk 19:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)