Noto-Ichinose
Noto-Ichinose, you are invited to the Teahouse! edit
|
Hi Noto-Ichinose! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for August 3 edit
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Defense Distributed, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Edit-warring on Gateway Pundit 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 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 your 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
More problems edit
On Gateway Pundit, besides the edit warring (and besides the ridiculous "news publication"), you inserted obviously non-neutral information, with BLP implications. On Doxing, you inserted blatantly false information about "Antifa"; first of all, there is no "Antifa" in the sense of an individual organization, and second, as the linked article clearly explained, the one person who runs that website "is" not Antifa. On DEFCAD, you inserted yet more editorial commentary, with another BLP violation. It seems you're here to be an activist of some sort, and I hope you will prove me wrong. But just in case--though you seem to be well aware of the technicalities of editing Wikipedia, I will drop a few templates below that indicate what the community's recourse is against problematic editing in problematic areas. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
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 recently 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 any 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 recently 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 any 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.
August 2018 edit
Hello, I'm Abequinn14. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Racism— because it 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 or my talk page. Thank you. Abequinn14 (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Nzd has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Using an edit-warring template after a single revert is an abuse of the template. Please don't do that again. Nzd (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Edit warring edit
Under normal circumstances, edit warring notices should be issued if the user reverted edits more than three times within 24 hours with exceptions of WP:1RR, WP:0RR (Arbitration enforcement) and clear-cut cases of vandalism. Abequinn14 only reverted your edits once which didn't violate the 3 revert rule. Please review WP:3RR. I have removed the notice you issued. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 14:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
When you start a discussion with a user, you must notify them on their talk page by using the template {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ . Regards ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 14:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Edit warring edit
It looks like Abelmoschus Esculentus already told you about giving edit warring warnings for no good reason, you might do well to read it. Why did you revert my null edit? It seems like you're just trying to be disruptive at that point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Kakumei-teki himote doumei edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Kakumei-teki himote doumei requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
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 recently shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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 any 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.
August 2018 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction edit
The following sanction now applies to you:
three month topic ban from all BLP edits
You have been sanctioned for disruptive editing and edit-warring over BLPs as described here
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#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. Doug Weller talk 17:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
AfD's??? edit
You just listed a bunch of biography pages up for AFD. Why? Abequinn14 (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion edit
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Noto-Ichinose. Thank you. —GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
August 2018 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.