User talk:Aceruss

November 2016

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to David Dinkins have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shabazz--- Listen all I did was CORRECT falsehoods, and I will continue to do so.

Aceruss, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Aceruss! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Rudy Giuliani. Bbb23 (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Materialscientist (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Your recent editing history at Rudy Giuliani 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. General Ization ^Talk 04:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in New York City

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Crime in New York City. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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; 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. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this once again. There are a few problems with this edit. First off, an image ([1]) is not an ideal source. It would be better to cite the actual article in question, not just the headline, presuming it's from a reliable source. Second, that source doesn't even support the claim made, that violent crime was out of control. Finally, you're presenting the numbers from your second source ([2]) in a non-neutral way and coming to a conclusion the source doesn't present (WP:SYNTH). Your wording misleads the reader into thinking the murder rate didn't start to decrease until Giuliani took office. However, your source actually shows that the rate started decreasing in 1991, after a peak in 1990. This was during Dinkin's term, you'll note. At any rate, this particular source doesn't support any causal ties between mayor and murder rate.

I strongly encourage you to take to the article talk page before adding this information again. Wikipedia works on consensus and your edits to this article have been repeatedly challenged, so you have to justify them on the talk page and convince other editors that this information should be included (see WP:BRD). clpo13_(talk) 07:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the article's talk page to discuss your proposed changes to the article. Try to build consensus for your proposed changes instead of edit-warring. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't personalize this. If you wish to rewrite the article to say the exact opposite of what it currently says -- which is supported by sources -- use the article's talk page to discuss your proposed changes and try to build consensus for them. Please read WP:NPOV, especially WP:BALANCE.

I, too, lived in New York during the Giuliani years, and the Dinkins years, and the Koch years, and the Beame years, etc. Let's reminisce sometime. Or not. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I lived in NYC and surrounding area from the 60s until just before 9/11. The lines I replaced had 3 sources, 2 were non-existent links and the 3rd was an autobiography which cannot be the sole source. Now in all fairness the same 2-3 lines about Dinkins appear on the same page under the DINKINS heading. There is no need to have the SAME EXACT paragraph twice in the same wikipedia page. My paragraph is supported by 7 good sources, not 2 non-existent links and a autobiography. I thought a reasonable compromise would be to correct the Giuliani section and leave the wording on the dinkins section. This would be the BALANCE you mentioned. I am not a dinkins hater or pushing a pov, he was a very nice man and made a great deal on the tennis for the city. But when it came to crime his numbers were terrible. Another point is on the bloomberg section there is NO mention of other mayors, on the dinkins section there is NO mention of other mayors. Why on the Giuliani section do we need praise of another mayor, especially one that is factually way off base and not supported by sources as I've explained. I'm writing to you directly as you are the one with the lasting issues on this but feel free to post this discussion on the talk page if you think that would help. And again happy Holidays.Aceruss (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, the editing process works by consensus, not by horse-trades between editors on their talk pages. You've been advised repeatedly to discuss your proposed changes at Talk:Crime in New York City, not on your talk page or on mine. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Crime in New York City. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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; 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. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Shabazz STOP engaging in edit warring, you keep reposting FALSE claims that are cited with 2 broken links and an autobiography and taking down my work with SEVEN GOOD LINKS. You may be blocked if this continues.

If you wish to rewrite a paragraph in Crime in New York City to change it from saying one thing to make it say the exact opposite, you need to discuss your proposed changes at Talk:Crime in New York City. What's wrong with what it currently says? Why are you right and the current sources wrong? Why are your sources superior? Until you start explaining yourself at Talk:Crime in New York City, I will continue to revert your proposed and unjustified changes. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had already commented on the talk page so go ahead and get the ball rolling over thereAceruss (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani

The responsibility is on you—if you want to rewrite a paragraph to say the exact opposite of what it currently says, you need to start a talk page discussion on the article's talk page and try to build consensus in support of your changes. Or you can have them reverted. Your choice. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you will continue to make up your own rules, but I will continue to put up factual and properly sources articles, per wikipedia policy.Aceruss (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

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 Foxwoods Resort Casino, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification that discretionary sanctions apply to the area in which you edit

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.

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits at Rudy Giuliani

Your recent edits to Rudy Giuliani have been reverted. Your attempts to make this change have been reverted twice before (here and here). Since you have been blocked in the past for edit warring, you should know that you need to open a discussion about the matter rather than simply trying to force your own version of the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...Still waiting for you to discuss your proposed changes instead of edit-warring over them. Any time you're ready. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Rudy Giuliani, you may be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 05:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Rudy Giuliani.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.
If you don't start a discussion on the article's talk page, the next time you edit it I will bring the matter to WP:AE. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Rudy Giuliani. General Ization ^Talk 13:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of source

Your addition has been deleted for good reason. You added "....Clapper says that there wasn't evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump", but left out the next words "earlier this year." That's very misleading, because there is more evidence of collusion coming out. Clapper was not speaking of now, which your edit implied, but of "earlier this year." Be more careful. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Famousbirthdays.com is not a reliable source

Hi Aceruss. I'm in the process of removing famousbirthdays.com as a source from Wikipedia, because it's not reliable (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information). I noticed that you've added it, and wanted to make sure you understood why it's being removed. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz, I liked the content of your page. I, too want to help build a factual and well sourced encyclopedia. Perhaps we will talk more and work on future projects. On this topic, there are several biographies where the birthdate says citation needed. Ok famous birthdays is no good. I would also like to know a good source in its place.Aceruss (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russian interference

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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; 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 stop reinserting the Clapper bit. It is contrary to consensus on talk page. SPECIFICO talk 03:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new interview with Clapper, who was not involved in the investigation at the time, which might interest you. You can read it here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Giuliani

I wanted to remind you about the discretionary sanctions that apply to the page (see above) and that you really should read WP:Identifying reliable sources carefully, and then read it again. You're still citing sources that are not "reliable sources" and making assertions not found in the sources you cite. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Aceruss slow-motion edit war. Objective3000 (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Giuliani

I think you need to appeal to either WP:DRN or WP:MEDCOM for any specific content disputes you have. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, some of your edits (such as [3]) appear to be purely disruptive. As a result, other controversial edits you make on this topic are (quite rightly) being reverted. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Aceruss. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder per the above

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.

—SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

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

—SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Giuliani sycophancy and Dinkins hatred

Keep it up and you will be visiting WP:AE very soon. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ripley, Tennessee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ray King (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) 09:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Aceruss. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Aceruss. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Andre Agassi, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]