User talk:Markvrb

Markvrb, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Markvrb! 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 I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Acroterion (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notices

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

} Acroterion (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify and make clear the consequences of carrying on the way you have so far. If you continue to use talk pages as forums just to complain about bias without making constructive comments on specific sourced changes you'd like to see, you are likely to be topic banned from articles about people and articles about American politics, including their talk pages. This isn't a threat, just a statement about consequences. So if you think something has been disproved long ago, then bring sources showing that. If you think that "There is more proof of deep state corruption & resistance against Trump admin than there ever was about Trump colluding with Russia." bring sources, not just complaints. Don't use talk pages to talk about other subjects, eg don't use a Trump talk page to ask why there isn't a certain article on Clinton. Your comments may be acceptable on a forum but they are not appropriate here. And never make defamatory statements about living people the way you did at Talk:Adam Schiff. That will lead not just to a topic ban but a block. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been topic banned indefinitely from all pages and discussions to do with post-1932 American politics. Please read WP:TBAN to see what "topic banned" means.

You have been sanctioned because after the very explicit warning you received above, you have continued to use talkpages as forums without any constructive suggestions or sources. Examples: [1], [2].

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 09:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (help!) 11:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban violation

Did you read my topic ban notice in the yellow box above, and read WP:TBAN? It doesn't look like it, as this edit very obviously violates the ban. If Guy hadn't got in first with a general 24-hour block for disruptive editing, you'd probably be looking at a one- or two-week block for topic ban violation now. In your own interest, please read the topic ban notice carefully. Bishonen | talk 12:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Informational block

Hi, Markvrb. You have been blocked indefinitely. I'm not trying to chase you off Wikipedia, but only to help you find this page, your own talkpage, because I get the impression you don't know about it. Please read the warnings and the topic ban above. If you post below my post here, indicating that you have read and understood these things, you can be unblocked. Bishonen | talk 15:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC). [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #27538 was submitted on Nov 09, 2019 11:49:49. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock this or delete my account and I will take further action. I am not posting baseless concerns in "talk" pages . They are concerns of bias. What remedy do I have to point out obvious bias? Further wiki claims it's user edited, but it's held hostage by liberal moderators who refuse to hear other contributors. Markvrb (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not technically possible to delete an account. I'm curious, what further action do you plan to take? Is this a physical threat or a legal threat? By the way, we are explicitly mainstream, eg our policy at WP:VERIFY says "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications". You'd probably be happy at Metapedia, where racism and fascism are not seen as the evils they are. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]