Rajulbat
Welcome edit
|
DRN on communism edit
The noticeboard will be where the recent talk page discussion will be negotiated: here. →Σσς. (Sigma) 05:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message edit
Hello, Rajulbat. 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)
Nomination of Shelter Now for deletion edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shelter Now is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelter Now until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Daiyusha (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Edit-warring on Mitch McConnell edit
Your recent editing history 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 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 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.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- The content that you're removing is long-standing content. This content was put into the article in 2017 and was essentially unchanged until you drastically changed it. Follow WP:BRD and stop edit-warring. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
January 2019 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 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.
Heads up edit
Hey, not sure how long you've been editing Wikipedia, but just as an FYI you should know that if you're a leftist and/or virulently anti-Trump, you're invulnerable to being held accountable for your actions here. Sort of a "get out of sanctions free" card, barring some egregious flaunting of the rules to the point where people assume you're trying to get sanctioned. Snoogans is a devout follower of liberal ideology, and makes sure that this perspective is firmly represented in the articles. The administrators will ensure the same, and as you can see, will protect these people from any repercussions if you report them for various violations. For reference, check out avowed liberal Volunteer Marek's block log and dozens of complaints for edit warring and personal attacks at the WP:AE boards. Let off scot free every time, under the direction of fellow leftists and Wikipedia chieftains Drmies, Sandstein, EdJohnston, Boing! etc. etc. etc. If you're identified as a conservative or even a moderate (which I have no idea if you are or not), they WILL find a way to get rid of you. Seen it many a time. Atsme, Winkelvi, Hidden Tempo, James J. Lambden, and others have either been banished or are on very thin ice for not agreeing with the approved groupthink. As you can see, they're currently debating whether or not to do it to you already, using words like "boomerang" and "aspersions" as sort of trial balloon murmurs prior to getting rid of you, lest you interfere with the operation. I think at this point you may want to apologize for bringing Snoogans' violations to their attention, admit that you were in the wrong and clearly must have been confused about the rules, and withdraw your complaint with the deepest of apologies. If not, the wheels have already been set in motion via emails/IRC channels to ban/block you so they don't have to deal with a non-leftist perspective. This will likely get deleted by Drmies, Objective3000, or one of their minions, but hopefully you see this before they can get to it. Best of luck. 216.205.224.64 (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction edit
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are topic-banned from everything related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people for three months.
You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#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. Sandstein 12:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The Result edit
My POV is that the resulting sanctions are heavy-handed. It disturbs me that some editors were relishing an opportunity to go even further. On the positive side, I learned a lot from watching what happened to you. I think you learned from it too. I detect an intelligence in you that will absolutely not be making those mistakes again. RandomGnome (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- AE, and Sandstein by extension, has been used by civil POV pushers to ban their opponents for years. You gotta go there prepared with diffs or not at all. You have to be willing to do the research which can take weeks to prepare. While one side only needs allegations of hurting their "editing experience", the other side needs substatial diffs and evidence of wrong doing. When I suggested that I might take it to AE, I'd have done it after a lot of research so that I could demonstrate problem patterns. Unsupported allegations followed by unwillingness to find diffs when asked wasn't the way to do it..--v/r - TP 19:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- It was a surreal experience. It's going to be fine though. Thanks to you both for your advice.--Rajulbat (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC).
- I suggest bashing "wikipedia sucks" into the search engine of your choice (which might not be gaggle) and see if that leads you anywhere cathartic. As you say, it's no biggie; 3 months is not an eternity. I did 500 days among the un-wikipediants playing with pixels on the group oO-W bench and learned some things. 🐜 ⚛ 🐜 SashiRolls t · c 19:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- It was a surreal experience. It's going to be fine though. Thanks to you both for your advice.--Rajulbat (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC).
ArbCom 2019 election voter message edit
| | 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 |