User talk:Samp4ngeles

Welcome!

Hello, Samp4ngeles, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mark Arsten (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Samp4ngeles. You have new messages at Mark Arsten's talk page.
Message added 13:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Mark Arsten (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Hollywood Heights, Los Angeles was accepted

Hollywood Heights, Los Angeles, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Lugia2453 (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A source to put for any one at the oscars

Well good luck editing, now always try to get a link to the Oscars official site. (IE here is a page I made last night for a visual effects artist of ET): Kenneth F. Smith I have links to the Oscar site as you see. I have made tons of new people the past few weeks, well good luck and have fun! Wgolf (talk) 21:29, 23 March 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) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Samp4ngeles. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Samp4ngeles. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Samp4ngeles. 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]

Vandalism is prohibited

Hello, I'm Xenagoras. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Tulsi Gabbard have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Xenagoras (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

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.

- Mr X 🖋 12:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Tulsi Gabbard shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. - Mr X 🖋 12:35, 30 October 2019 (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:Samp4ngeles reported by User:MrX (Result: ). Thank you. - Mr X 🖋 12:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Samp4ngeles. You've been warned as the result of this complaint. For details see the closure at the noticeboard. You may be blocked if you make any more reverts regarding the spelling of Tulsi Gabbard's first name unless you have obtained a prior consensus on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please work to develop consensus for BLP info in articles

Hi Samp4ngeles. Please work on the article talk pages to gain the required consensus for inclusion of biographical information within Science of Identity Foundation and Mike Gabbard.

Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you need to stop edit-warring and work collaboratively with others on the article talk pages to find consensus. Taking disputed material from one article and incorporating it into another is not a good approach. --Ronz (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Science of Identity Foundation

Do you think you could respond on the talk page before reverting. Your source is supposed to support the first sentence of the article which reads, "The Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) is a socially conservative religious organization based in Hawaii, United States, founded by Kris "Chris" Butler (also known as Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa, Siddha Swarup Ananda Goswami, Paramahamsa, and Sai Young) in 1977." Nothing in the 1970 article supports any of those assertions, nor could it since events cannot be recorded before they happen. TFD (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That specific source simply references names used by Butler, and it is significant given that it was the first RS mention his following. Most of the other items in the first sentence were there before the addition of this source but can be supported by the addition of other, more recent RS. I am happy to add those within the next day, if others don't add them first.TFD (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you provide say who the founders of the foundation were. Is there any particular reason you are interested in this group? If you are a member, you should report a COI. TFD (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Signing comments

Please see Wikipedia:Signatures on how to sign comments. The signatures of your comments here and here are wrong, pointing to or naming the editor you are responding to, instead of your own user page and user name.

(Also, you appear to have misunderstood my comment here as directed at you - rather, as can be seen from the indentation, it was a reply to the comment right above by TFD/The Four Deuces dated 05:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC).)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gabbard

As info, the edit you changed on Mike Gabbard's page was made by a Sockpuppet for Puppetmaster ContentEditman. The user has been warned in the past for edit Warring and reported for both edit Warring and Sockpuppetry. If the edit Warring continues on that page you may wish to consider additional reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:DC00:14D0:19B1:D5BB:25A4:6AA3 (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsi Gabbard

Do you think you could respond to the comments of other editors about your edits on the talk page? TFD (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why you would use a source, "SARS travel warning to Toronto lifted", that does not mention Hawaii or Gabbard for a claim that Gabbard supported quarantine of patients with symptoms of SARS in Hawaii? TFD (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting that. Will correct the link. It should be [1] ("State remains on watch for potential SARS cases").Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

TFD (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

Your recent editing history at Tulsi Gabbard shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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.

Note that this article is under arbitration sanctions and has a one revert rule. Please revert your edit or I will report your actions to arbitration enforcement. I note you have already been warned for edit-warring.

Also, you should discuss differences on the talk page rather than in edit summaries.

TFD (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me get this straight. You're asking that I reverse an edit based on your factually-incorrect reasoning that contradicts a source you cited? Please. Go read your source again before wasting anyone's time with this.Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reported your edit-warring to the 3RR noticeboard and you may reply here. TFD (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a reply to your comments on the talk page. You need to distinguish between (1) isolation of persons with symptoms of SARS and (2) quarantine of contacts of personas with symptoms of SARS who have no symptoms themselves. Both Gabbard and the CDC supported the first but not the second. Quarantine was however carried out in Toronto, where the disease was more widespread. It could be that the source of your confusion is that the Hawaii Advertiser article incorrectly uses the term quarantine, when it is referring to isolation. Isolation refers to the segregation of individuals with symptoms, while quarantine refers to the segregation of persons without symptoms but have had contact with persons with symptoms. TFD (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever else, if you are going to continue to reinstate this change, please join the discussion on the article talk page. Making changes and then failing to discuss them when there is dispute is likely to be seen as WP:Disruptive editing, and you've made the change often enough that you can just brush it off. Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um sorry I meant 'can't just brush it off' Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Tulsi Gabbard

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

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.

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 ~~~~}}.

for violating WP:1RR at Tulsi Gabbard. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. There is a broader concern that you may not be able to edit neutrally on the topic of Tulsi Gabbard, but that's not for discussion here. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring again

I notice that you have performed two reverts on the article Tulsi Gabbard in a 24 hour period, which is in violation of 1RR. Please self-revert or I will report this matter to arbitration enforcement. TFD (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to count it again. It was only one revert, of the @Xenagoras revert. If you notice, I went on to explain the revert in further by creating a new topic in Talk. That should eliminate any confusion. This is not "edit warring," but I would perhaps agree with you if I were to revert it a second time. Samp4ngeles (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me do the counting for you. This was your first removal of the content in question: [2] and that was the second removal of the same content one hour later: [3]. You also claimed WP:OWNERSHIP of that content. [4] Afterwards you "justified" your edits via original research that contained damaging the reputation of the WP:BLP's subject [5]. And you disputed the reliability of apparently good sources [6]. Xenagoras (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samp4ngeles, I have filed a report at AE and you may reply here. TFD (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TFD Man, you really seem to have a personal vendetta against me. Feel free to read my explanation and thinking above. Feel free to read the talk page on the article, which is productive and seems to reach the conclusion that the word shouldn't be in the article (although I note that @Xenagoras has not joined the conversation there). This single revert was above-board, constructive, and ultimately collaborative and did not violate 1RR or any other policy. It was not "edit warring," and it makes it a better article. Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sam4ngeles. Your counting of reverts makes no sense. Your first removal of 'multi-religious' on 19 December is a revert of this edit on the same day by Humanengr. That makes one revert. You've already admitted that your second edit is a revert. That makes two reverts in 24 hours. Do you really want to tie your future here to such an easily-refuted argument? If you don't intend to follow our policies, Wikipedia may not be the place for you. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it. Samp4ngeles (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I collapsed the AE discussion thread.[7] TFD (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TFD's collapse of the AE discussion thread noted you had "self-reverted". However, your self-revert was only partial as it did not remove the hidden comment "" you inserted here. As Xenagoras noted above, that insertion violated WP:OWNERSHIP. It also violated WP:HIDDEN. Humanengr (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Odd response; inappropriate cite for BLP

@Samp4ngeles, I responded to you on Tulsi Gabbard talk regarding your odd response to TFD.

I removed your inappropriate WP:HIDDEN- and WP:OWNERSHIP-violating hidden comment, referenced in your Talk section [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsi_Gabbard&type=revision&diff=931861488&oldid=931755025 above].

In reviewing your edits, I see that the 2nd cite you inserted here in Tulsi Gabbard#Early career does not mention Tulsi and does not belong in her BLP. This is not an article about ATMV. Inclusion of that cite violates WP:COATRACK and should be removed. Humanengr (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violation

@Samp4ngeles:, Repeating what I said on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard: The 2001 Asato citation violates WP:BLP on several counts not least of which is the fact that raises the salacious innuendo of an ethics violation by Carol Gabbard, when Carol Gabbard was, in fact, cleared. Either you remove it or I am reporting you for this tendentious behavior. The form of the Science of Identity material has not been finalized. Discuss there. Humanengr (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done!Samp4ngeles (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring Tulsi Gabbard again

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. Humanengr (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove your language implying Gabbard is likely lying

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Tulsi Gabbard, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you.

I have asked you twice to remove your language implying that Gabbard is likely lying when she says she grew up in a multi-religious household. Such content is a violation of WP:BLP whether in the article or on the Talk page. Humanengr (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What language specifically? I'm having trouble finding anything that's remotely defamatory (e.g., no false statements of fact, nothing that would harm Gabbard's reputation, and nothing that is malicious). But do point out the language if you're concerned by something. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The language concerns Gabbard's statement that she "grew up in a multicultural, multi-religious household", where you wrote: "there is very much 'reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.' Politicians make claims like this all the time for political purposes; for Gabbard, crafting a message in 2012 around growing up in a multi-religious household with a Hindu bent would very much have been self-serving." Humanengr (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I edited the sentence to get the point across more clearly. Hopefully it addresses your concerns as well. Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further edit-warring at Tulsi Gabbard

I didn't realize you've been edit-warring over the "multireligious" and related details [8] [9] [10]. Please self-revert. --Ronz (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Took it off for now...Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz Just for info, this is longstanding content that Samp4 is trying to remove. Here's how the section looked on December 25th, 2015 before any of us got involved. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the version from right before the multicultural, multireligious language was inserted immediately after the non-RS rediff interview: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsi_Gabbard&oldid=521947988#cite_note-hindu-1 . Just because content was there seven years ago doesn't mean it should be on the page today. Samp4ngeles (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Butler (guru) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Chris Butler (guru), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 03:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior at Talk:Tulsi_Gabbard

You have been warned and blocked before for your behavior on the Tulsi Gabbard article. Further comments like this one on the talk page can lead to you being topic restricted. Jonathunder (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathunder What's your issue with it? Samp4ngeles (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't exactly being subtle about pointing out connections to the the S.I.F. Stop with the overlinking already. Jonathunder (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought to associate WP:OVERLINK with Talk pages... Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please never attempt anything like this again. You're very lucky you haven't been blocked or banned at this point. --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Chris Butler (guru)

Hello, Samp4ngeles. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Chris Butler".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (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) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My revert

Hello Samp4ngeles. I would like to explain my revert of you at George Santos. I can definitely appreciate that you are trying to add sources to establish the importance of the drag queen issue. However, I must stress that if subpar quality sources are added, it will not convince people that this issue is actually important. You can see from WP:RSP that Salon is one of the sources with questionable reliability. This is one example and I believe the others like the New Republic also fall in there. Substack is definitely not acceptable. We should try to stick to mainstream news sources (e.g. The Hill) and other green-rated RSP sources. This is what we need to ensure the content remains in the article. starship .paint (exalt) 03:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Santos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Santos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bingo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. Acroterion (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Chen Weiss

Regarding the above deletion discussion, I found your justification of "not WP:N" to be short. If it was correct, I wouldn't comment. But considering how clear her notability is, and how easy it was to establish that by doing the searches listed at WP:BEFORE, I would encourage you to either be more careful about nominations or at least explain the thinking behind them with more than 2 words. Considering all the bias on wikipedia (women's biographies are under represented, women of colour especially), it felt important to give you this feedback. I hope this message lands with the helpful kindness that is intended. Peace. CT55555(talk) 21:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Anna Paulina Luna. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Unexplained reinsertions of unencyclopedic material is disruptive. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies I thought your edits were disruptive, as well. Let's revert to the original material and take your suggestions to Talk. 2A00:23C8:6C0D:1101:60CE:FA96:C979:D27E (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2023 (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) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics - gender and sexuality, biographies of living or recently deceased people

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Elliot Page. I agree with User:Firefangledfeathers that your recent edits, though each sounding reasonable described in edit-summaries, have an overall effect of a substantive change of tone/point of view in relation to Page's gender. This as part of your recent edit history puts you on the line of being sanctioned under the contentious-topics policy. DMacks (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: They're still at it; I just reverted this edit at Chelsea Manning. Funcrunch (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the special attention, but at what? My edit was good and eliminated confusion, which your reversion reintroduces. Samp4ngeles (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read MOS:GENDERID? It seems unlikely you have since many of your recent edits are not in compliance. I strongly suggest you read it carefully and make sure you understand it before you make any further edits that may relate to it, since you seem to be on a speedrun to at least a topic ban, if not a fully block. Nil Einne (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too late I guess, but I just wanted to add that beyond MOS:GENDERID, most of the subjects you are editing are extremely high profile examples such that there is likely a lot of previous discussion on the talk page. I strongly suggest you also read these discussions before you return to editing the area when your block ends. Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for edit-warring across multiple biographical articles., you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia 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.

DMacks (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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."