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)

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).