User talk:Bulldog123

Hey Bulldog. In answer to your question about sourcing Sid Haig's ethnicity, I told you to go to his site and join and ask him yourself. It's also in interviews and his last name is "Mosesian". Some Nazi deleted it. Anyway, there's your answer, as best as I can see it. Cheers. 76.89.232.168 (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Bulldog123. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: removal of source material/restoration of unsourced material

The sourced material I removed was added by an anonymous IP who included two rather sneering messages with his edits. The source that user added was a fansite-hosted PDF file of collected quotations (the quotation in question wasn't very well-referenced within that file, only providing the title "10 Questions for Joss Whedon"). I responded to that user's "Absolutely nothing suggesting that" edit summary comment by restoring the previous phrasing but this time with a more thorough reference.

I admit that in the process of reverting the paragraph back to its previous phrasing, as a side-effect I also restored the the first, unsourced, part of the sentence (the "born Jewish" assertion with the {{fact}} tags). Yes, I should have been bold enough to go ahead and remove it myself - if I'd checked, I'd have realised that it was a very recent addition to the article added by this anon user who seems to specialise in claiming that various people are Jewish. If I'd realised that, I would have removed it. But in the end, mentioning the lack of references in my edit summary was as far as I went.

(Having said all that, looking at the article again just now, I realised that I'd been distracted by the recent edits' focus on the start of the article and had forgotten that there's a whole "Spiritual and philosophical beliefs" section discussing the whole thing more thoroughly. It was entirely unnecessary for beliefs to be mentioned and disputed in the "Early life" section in the first place!) --Nick R^Talk 00:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral notice of an RfC

A Request for Comment has been posted for an article on which you have been an editor. If you wish to comment, go to Talk:List of African-American firsts# Request for Comment: Pro wrestling. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Armenian Americans, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Republican and Notre Dame (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) 11:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

disruptive edits

If you think that an article needs to be repurposed and the content substantially altered, you need to first try to obtain consensus from other interested editors or stop your edits. As it is, your edits are simply disruptive to the functioning of WP Hmains (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Bulldog123! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editors are welcome! (But being multilingual is not a requirement.) Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lev Nusberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian (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) 10:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American sportspeople of [European] descent categories

Several categories that were deleted following this discussion have been re-formed. Would you care to re-nominate them or should I? Tewapack (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Igor Markevitch, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ukrainian and Serbian (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) 19:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Armenian Americans may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBw] "<u>Armenian-American</u> community... '''Yousuf Karsh''' (1908-"</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Armenian Americans, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Republican and Notre Dame (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) 08:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bulldog123. 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)[reply]

November 2016

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Richard B. Spencer, did not appear constructive and has been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bulldog123 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: ). Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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. Katie^talk 03:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Bulldog123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please double check the page. I did not violate the three-revert rule because I never reverted to the same version three times. Each edit was different. Thanks and I understand that it looked that way so I don't blame you for blocking me without checking. Bulldog123 04:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You need to read WP:3RR again. It doesn't matter if it wasn't the same version. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

Bulldog123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My 3RR was justified per: "Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material." Users are using wording that is borderline libelous, but don't care because the biography is of someone they consider contemptible. See for yourself on Richard Spencer. Bulldog123 09:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Immediately after your prior block for edit-warring, you resumed. This time around, you need to show you achieved consensus, but that's not the case. After looking into the edits, I don't believe this is a BLP violation in this specific case. Note that I have no idea who this person is. Apart from reviewing unblock requests, I have never heard of him before. Yamla (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Stop edit-warring against consensus

If you don't cease your disruptive edit-warring across an array of articles related to white supremacy, a Arbitration Enforcement action may become necessary. You have already been blocked twice for edit-warring related to this material, and it should be abundantly clear that editorial consensus disagrees with you. If you can't edit in keeping with that consensus, you need to find some other topic area to edit. Your personal beliefs in this matter do not supersede reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't run on consensus without sources. I already explained what the problem is. Conflating one thing and saying its the other doesn't work. You can continue to ignore it, but in that case I will engage in the slow edit war to protect the truth. Bulldog123 02:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous sources, which you appear to be ignoring and then claiming they don't exist. Wikipedia isn't run on an editor claiming that "up is down" and "east is west". Rockypedia (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. 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.

Kuru (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've chosen to continue editing warring on the same article, I have blocked this account again. Unfortunately, since you have explicitly promised to continue violating our edit warring policy going forward, I have blocked this account indefinitely. Kuru (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Bulldog123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Uh, dude, you're totally overstepping. I said I'd provide the editors a chance to provide sources for their claims on a WP:BLP where there's a clear lack of WP:NEUTRALITY on the subject matter. I wasn't engaging in any disruptive edit war, and it's perfectly within my right as an editor to make changes I see as being against Wikipedia policy. You're being trigger-happy here. Bulldog123 14:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is most definitely not within your right to edit war to make disputed changes you see as being against Wikipedia policy (except for a few explicit and unambiguous exceptions, which are not met here), and you do not get to impose your own conditions on other editors. This is your third block for edit warring, yet you still do not appear to have understood what you are doing wrong. You will not be unblocked until you can make a convincing case that you do understand and that you will change your approach to editing - and that includes your dropping of your insistence that you "...will engage in the slow edit war to protect the truth". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

Bulldog123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What exactly did I do to justify a ban? Ban me after the fact if I prove to be disruptive. These pre-emptive strikes reek of partisanship. Bulldog123 00:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is your third block for edit warring. That's what you did. Further unblock requests that do not directly address the reason for your block will result in talkpage access being revoked. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This seems to be explained above; you have edited disruptively and you have been blocked for it. Since you've promised to continue the problematic behavior, you'll need to convince someone that the behavior will change. You will also need to stop evading your block and editing logged out, please. That does not help your case. Kuru (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is why this your ban is hard to take seriously. .Firstly, you're asking me to get on my hands and knees and beg you for an unblock. I've been an editor on Wikipedia for a decade. I'm not going to kiss the ring of some dude who decided to be a hero. You full well know this ban is overkill and (possibly) politically-motivated. Secondly, you're now outright accusing me of evading a block by editing while logged out... with zero evidence. Please cite the examples of me editing while logged out since this block please. Back up what you claim. (I know you guys intentionally don't do that on articles you disagree with politically, but at least stick to your principles as administrators and don't hurl accusations you can't back up) Bulldog123 13:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly clear, you have not been editing with an IP since your block? Kuru (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I couldn't even edit with a naked IP address even if I wanted to since my block. I only have one IP address, it's not dynamic (or at least it doesn't seem to change much), and you blocked it. Whoever you think is me, isn't. Bulldog123 03:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This IP wan't you? That seems unlikely. The same IP waited out the IP autoblock and continued the long-term edit war you've been playing with at Bulgarians‎ well after this account was blocked. Kuru (talk) 06:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously that was me. What's your point? I'm not purposely evading a ban there if I sign my name afterwards. And if I made some minor edits off an IP address before realizing I was perma-banned, that's not exactly "maliciously evading a ban" either. We don't always remember to sign in. And yes, I don't exclusively go online from my house, and I expect you don't either. I work at a school with wifi so obviously I'm using frequently-shared IP addresses. I'm sure hundreds of people edit Wikipedia from this school. But whatever --- if you want to pin some stuff from an old IP address to justify a ban, okay, do whatever you need. Bulldog123 12:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've asked me to "back up my claim". I have provided you evidence of that claim. You have admitted to evading the block placed on the account. I asked you, above, to politely cease doing this. You can spin this into your persecution complex however you like. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks to me like the IP edit here was made before the block - Bulldog123 couldn't have added his sig to it immediately afterwards had he been blocked at the time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The diff was to establish that it was his IP; the evasion was the three edits after that, which all occurred well after the block of the main account on 12/28. Kuru (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, understood. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can look up "login times," you'll notice I didn't even realize I was spontaneously banned until after making those edits. User:Kuru is basically digging for reasons to justify his perma-ban. Bulldog123 03:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, 3 different admins have blocked you for edit warring - and 4 other different admins have tried to explain that your blocks are due to edit warring - and that's just recently. You have been repeatedly warned that this is where behavior of this sort will lead. Perhaps it's time to consider that this isn't just some massive politically motivated conspiracy, and maybe you're just breaking the rules here? SQL ^{Query me!} 03:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editting Wikipedia for a decade and have engaged in many debates on controversial topics. Many of these debates included what you would consider "edit wars" because I refused to allow the dessimation of information that is patently false (especially on WP:BLP articles). Yet, I get a pre-emptive perma-ban the second I start challenging the blatant orthodoxy on display at the highly controversial and political Richard Spencer article. What a coincidence!

You're right hough. It's not a conspiracy, because conspiracies are not this transparent, but it is obviously political. The easiest thing would be to change the wording to more accurately reflect reliable sources. But, hey, that doesn't support the narrative Wikipedia wants to promulgate, so I guess permabans for anyone not towing the line are way easier than justifying the diction. Bulldog123 12:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]