Rambo Apocalypse
Welcome!
|
Discretionary sanctions alert edit
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.
April 2020 edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to UEFA Euro 2021 has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: UEFA Euro 2021 was changed by Rambo Apocalypse (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.927448 on 2020-04-21T18:53:16+00:00
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
May 2020 edit
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 being blocked from editing—especially, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
- You just violated the 1RR rule (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period) at Racial views of Donald Trump. I strongly suggest that you self-revert. O3000 (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion edit
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:Rambo_Apocalypse reported by User:The4lines (Result: ). Thank you. The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 14:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Important Notice edit
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 articles about 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.
Partial block from Racial views of Donald Trump edit
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.
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."
El_C 18:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Olive branch edit
Hi - I will understand if you don't want to hear from me just now, in which case feel free to revert or ignore this post. I just saw your last comments on the edit warring noticeboard, and wanted to say that I'm not your enemy, I wasn't trying to get you banned - when I advised you to self-revert, I meant that for your own good. Wikipedia does have lots of rules that can be difficult to navigate when you're new; it also has dispute resolution procedures that can be used when you're in disagreement with other editors at a page. If you ever want any advice on those, you're welcome to drop by my talk page, or there is always the TEAHOUSE if you'd rather speak to someone else. I hope there's no hard feelings, this is a stressful time for everyone without adding any Wikipedia-related drama to the mix. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 19:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, Like above if you don’t want to hear from me its fine. Like Girth Summit I was not trying to get you banned, I was just doing my job. I advise you to listen to girth or in fact any admin when he tell you something. Per Girth, I say everything he says. Again feel free to disregard this message. Thanks, The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 20:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Same here. You will note in my edit a couple sections above, I advised you to self-revert instead of filing a complaint. O3000 (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit The4lines I don't bear a grudge, I accept that a platform like this needs rules, you thought I broke them and another admin concurred so fair enough.
What I would like to know is what I'm supposed to do in a situation? You don't think I went about it the right way, what is the right way? What would the model Wikipedian have done? Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- The first thing you should do is self-revert the edit I just warned you about. O3000 (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Objective3000 There is zero prospect of that. I stand by what I posted 100%, it is the truth. Perhaps you have an issue with that.
- I assume good faith in that I believe you guys genuinely believe Trump is a racist (so do I by the way) and genuinely think you're doing a good thing by promoting that narrative as much as possible. Promoting his detractors' opinions so they are more prominent than his own views is so obviously dishonest that I cannot possibly go any further. It's like asking me to believe that you genuinely think 2 + 2 = 5. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Rambo Apocalypse, Hi again - I'll address the question 'what am I supposed to do in a situation'. Basically, it's a lot more talk page usage. After a revert, head to the talk page, even if you think the ground has been covered. Explain why you inserted/removed something - say 'I thought that in the section above, we had agreed that it should say 'blah blah blah'.' Users should be willing to come back and engage with the discussion. If they don't engage with you, or if they do and you can't come to an agreement, you should explore on of the dispute resolution channels. I already pointed you towards WP:RFC - that's a common one, there are others like third opinion].
- What you shouldn't do is reinstate your edit - in whole or in part - after being reverted, without discussing it with the other person. You reinstated the POV tag that I removed before you approached me on my talk page. The best practice would have been for you to ask, on the article talk page, why I removed it. That is good practice for any article, but on a page with 1RR and 24-hour BRD restrictions, it is mandatory.
- With regard to your final point, I'm not sure whether you are including me in your assumptions about what people thing about the subject of the article, but you are definitely going in the wrong direction in making, and voicing, assumptions about other people's motives. Nobody can't police what you think, but making comments like the one you have above is going to end up getting you into more bother. The usual refrain is 'Comment on content, not contributors'. What we think about any subject is irrelevant to any discussion - what we write in articles is what matters, and should be the only thing under discussion. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 07:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation edit
An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rambo Apocalypse, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
August 2022 edit
Hello, I'm Mr.weedle. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Future FIFA Club World Cup (China), but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mr.weedle (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message edit
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) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages edit
Hi. I noticed that you created Continental Classic as a disambiguation page. Per the Manual of Style guidelines on disambiguation pages, next time please add Template:Disambiguation to the bottom of disambig pages and organize entries in alphabetical order. Best, #prodraxis connect 18:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)