|
|||||
Notification
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.Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento and Tawana Brawley rape allegations
@Display name 99: Hi Display name 99, I'm MagicatthemovieS. You might remember me - you passed my nomination of the Gospel of Jesus' Wife as a good article. Since we work well together, I was wondering f you might like to check out two articles which I recently nominated to reach good article status - Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento and Tawana Brawley rape allegations. Let me know if you are interested in either article or both of them.
Thanks, ~ MagicatthemovieS
Andrew Jackson revisited
Undid your reversion because it appears to have been performed in error—the passage in question concerns Andrew Jackson, not John C. Calhoun.
Apologises for my edit
Hi, Display name 99, I would like to apologise for the edit I made on James Longstreet. The reason I changed it was because I thought the title didn't represent the section; I thought a note was a paragraph of text that provided elaboration on something that was mention. I did some research after I saw your edit summary and found out I was wrong, a note is the correct term, and that a citation is a reference that has a quotation.
The reason why I didn't discuss it on the talk page or give a reason in my edit summary was because I didn't think my edit was major — I thought I was correcting a mistake – and I had seen other, more experienced, users do the same thing, just stating what they did and just leaving it at that. I had no idea that what I was doing was a big issue. I'm a new-ish user, I'm still learning the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia, so I look at some edits that more experienced editors are doing. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Appealing post-1992 Am Pol Topic Ban
Hello Nosebagbear. You unblocked me earlier this year with a ban on post-1992 American politics appealable to the community after 4 months, meaning November 5. I would like to make the appeal now. Can you explain how this works? Do I have to start an AN/I thread? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hi DN99, you do need to start a thread, although appeals are done at WP:AN rather than ANI, you've certainly been active enough, including an FA. I'd note that it's particularly beneficial for these things to demonstrate efforts specifically in sync with what caused the initial sanctions. Here that would be productive efforts to resolve disagreements. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Will do. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hi There DN99, I was just following up to see if you had appealed this at AN - the creation of an FA, along with a believe a somewhat tough FAC, shows good indication of an excellent rejoining, and not withstanding anything I might have missed, would mean I'd support such an effort. --Nosebagbear (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Nosebagbear, I apologize but I haven't done it yet. I've just been busy. I appreciate your support. I will probably do it this week, maybe even today, just to finally get it finished. Display name 99 (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- No need to apologise (even if you decide never to do it!) - just wanted to check because some people view my comment as a polite turning down, so I wanted to make sure that wasn't the case. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Nosebagbear, I apologize but I haven't done it yet. I've just been busy. I appreciate your support. I will probably do it this week, maybe even today, just to finally get it finished. Display name 99 (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi There DN99, I was just following up to see if you had appealed this at AN - the creation of an FA, along with a believe a somewhat tough FAC, shows good indication of an excellent rejoining, and not withstanding anything I might have missed, would mean I'd support such an effort. --Nosebagbear (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. Will do. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hi DN99, you do need to start a thread, although appeals are done at WP:AN rather than ANI, you've certainly been active enough, including an FA. I'd note that it's particularly beneficial for these things to demonstrate efforts specifically in sync with what caused the initial sanctions. Here that would be productive efforts to resolve disagreements. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
-- Robert William Fisher -- Suggestion
Hello. Your reversion of my semantic/stylistic edit shocked me. The article had many such slip-ups. As to the us of "spawned", please explain! I haven't checked as to your literacy, but assume it is fine, and therefore am gobsmacked. Sorry to sound so bent out of shape by this, but it exceeds anything I've encountered in the past.--Quisqualis (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Quisqualis, it's simple. The original language was fine. Yours made it no better and in my opinion left the article off slightly worse. I found the phrase "staying unidentified" to be particularly awkward, because if his remains were not identified at the time of his death years after his disappearance, and were subsequently buried, it is highly unlikely that they would have been identified later. I wrote most of the article, including the text which you changed. Some of the other changes that you made were helpful, which is why I did not revert them. But this one, in my judgment, was not. Display name 99 (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, 99. Given your authorship, your apparent personality type and our differing exposures to English, we may have some trouble communicating. I'd like to take up my reverted changes with you, point by point, in the coming days. So far, you have offered subjective reasons for your reversions. I appreciate your writing the article about this bizarre case; it is well-structured and clearly narrated. My niggles pertain to wording. Trust me, I'm an educated American. Must do my errands now.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Offering subjective reasons for changes is better than offering no reasons for changes, as has been the case with you up until this point. Also, just to set the record straight, you were the one questioning somebody else's education, not me. Display name 99 (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, 99. Given your authorship, your apparent personality type and our differing exposures to English, we may have some trouble communicating. I'd like to take up my reverted changes with you, point by point, in the coming days. So far, you have offered subjective reasons for your reversions. I appreciate your writing the article about this bizarre case; it is well-structured and clearly narrated. My niggles pertain to wording. Trust me, I'm an educated American. Must do my errands now.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)