→Topic ban: new section |
|||
Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
I just wanted to congratulate you on having an awesome username. When Duke loses, America wins. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 12:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC) |
I just wanted to congratulate you on having an awesome username. When Duke loses, America wins. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 12:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Topic ban == |
|||
== Topic ban == |
|||
As you were warned of discretionary sanctions [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gouncbeatduke&diff=732036990&oldid=721481721 here] and have continued to edit war and to make posts like these [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gouncbeatduke&diff=prev&oldid=734553192], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NeilN&diff=prev&oldid=734646711] I am imposing a temporary one month [[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Topic_ban|topic ban]] on all articles and pages related to [[Donald Trump]], broadly construed. |
|||
You should read [[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Topic_ban]] so you know what this entails. Basically, do not post to '''any page''' related to Donald Trump and do not mention or refer to Donald Trump anywhere. This ban can be appealed at the [[WP:AN|Administrators' Noticeboard]], and will be logged at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log#American_politics_2]]. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 04:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:44, 15 August 2016
Violation of discretionary sanctions
Greetings, in case you're not aware, you violated discretionary sanctions by restoring this content without Talk consensus. I thought I'd provide you with the opportunity to self revert.CFredkin (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I reverted your changes to a version multiple editors had worked on because I thought the version done by multiple editors was superior and more NPOV that your version. I don't understand why that is a violation of discretionary sanctions. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- And the redundancy has been removed now. Instead of rehashing all the old edits, can't you comment on the current discussion on how to phrase this on the article's talk page? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think I did violate that requirement as I reverted only your edit removing the edits made by multiple editors. I see now this was redundancy in three places, and I only fixed two of them. It may be that this is both a GOP opposition issue and a Security expert issue and needs some mention in two places. Again, I think the talk page of the article is where to fix this. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Humayun Khan (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) 10:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
RfC advice
Hi there. I don't know if this is your first time doing an RfC, but FYI for next time, RfC statements should be neutral and brief. This was good, this was not so good. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Good to know, I'll try to do better in the future. Is someone allowed to vote on a RFC they authored? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- RFC isn't a vote but typically, the initiator's suppose/oppose/whatever statement follows the RFC statement. "If you have lots to say on the issue, give and sign a brief statement in the initial description and save the page, then edit the page again and place additional comments below your first statement and signature." A RFC author essentially acts like any other editor. --NeilN talk to me 02:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Abortion
A response to me about this is obviously not mandatory, but it would be appreciated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- I tried to strike the incorrect parts of my statement, and I apologize for confusing your user id with another. What else do I need to do? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Please self-revert or you will be blocked. --NeilN talk to me 01:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note also question here: User_talk:NeilN#Discretionary_Sanctions --NeilN talk to me 01:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Why do you say "was clearly identified as sub-optimal on the talk page"? The last comment I see in the "Security Expert" section of the talk page is "Retain 'National Security community' section, I say. I'm backing up User: Gouncbeatduke on this. It's obviously not a party issue entirely. I'm positive the 'redundancy issue' can be handled in a reasonable manner. Gaeanautes (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)" Yet CFredkin and Anythingyouwant continue their edit war edits that completely remove all reference to the nuclear issue that both parties raised and just cover the GOP objections. You seemed to only be interested if editors support your preferred candidate and do not appear to be reading the talk page. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- "Consensus required: All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Editors stated that redundancies had to be addressed. I do not care about this election as I am not American. Will you be self-reverting? --NeilN talk to me 02:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. I suggest you work out how to fix the perceived redundancies and then go from there. --NeilN talk to me 02:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- You seem to fail to grasp that this is solely an issue of making sure edits by brown and black editors are erased and replaced with edits by white editors. Or perhaps you do grasp it and are just filling the talk pages with FUD. No amount of reducing redundancies is going to matter. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- "...This is solely an issue of making sure edits by brown and black editors are erased and replaced with edits by white editors." Explain. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- You seem to fail to grasp that this is solely an issue of making sure edits by brown and black editors are erased and replaced with edits by white editors. Or perhaps you do grasp it and are just filling the talk pages with FUD. No amount of reducing redundancies is going to matter. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. I suggest you work out how to fix the perceived redundancies and then go from there. --NeilN talk to me 02:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- "Consensus required: All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Editors stated that redundancies had to be addressed. I do not care about this election as I am not American. Will you be self-reverting? --NeilN talk to me 02:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Why do you say "was clearly identified as sub-optimal on the talk page"? The last comment I see in the "Security Expert" section of the talk page is "Retain 'National Security community' section, I say. I'm backing up User: Gouncbeatduke on this. It's obviously not a party issue entirely. I'm positive the 'redundancy issue' can be handled in a reasonable manner. Gaeanautes (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)" Yet CFredkin and Anythingyouwant continue their edit war edits that completely remove all reference to the nuclear issue that both parties raised and just cover the GOP objections. You seemed to only be interested if editors support your preferred candidate and do not appear to be reading the talk page. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Revert warning
This is to warn you that you are in danger of violating the Discretionary Sanctions on the page Donald Trump, or may have already violated them. I am referring to your repeated re-insertion of a "POV" tag at the top of the page after multiple users have removed it. You inserted this tag twice on August 10 [1] [2], again on August 12 [3], and once again on August 15 [4] despite a growing consensus at the referenced talk page discussion that the tag was inappropriate. Please also note the comment in that discussion from an uninvolved administrator, saying that the Discretionary Sanctions prohibit re-adding material which has been reverted as controversial, except with consensus, and that such material includes tags. --MelanieN (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Do you think the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:POV#When_to_remove conditions were met when this was removed? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Congrats
I just wanted to congratulate you on having an awesome username. When Duke loses, America wins. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Topic ban
Topic ban
As you were warned of discretionary sanctions here and have continued to edit war and to make posts like these [5], [6] I am imposing a temporary one month topic ban on all articles and pages related to Donald Trump, broadly construed.
You should read Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Topic_ban so you know what this entails. Basically, do not post to any page related to Donald Trump and do not mention or refer to Donald Trump anywhere. This ban can be appealed at the Administrators' Noticeboard, and will be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log#American_politics_2. --NeilN talk to me 04:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)