User talk:VwM.Mwv/Archive 2

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 22:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• VwM.Mwv, your block log is a horror show. It's really not sensible of you to start an edit war so soon after your indefinite block was lifted on conditions. I don't have time to review whether you have now again violated your topic ban, so I'm pinging @331dot and Yunshui: who seem to have dealt with previous problems. Bishonen | talk 22:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I have most certainly NOT violated the 30/500 limitation to anything even slightly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict since the issue was explained to me by 331dot a couple of days ago. Also, I have to say, it seems to me a bit ridiculous to be blocked for edit warring when the user who reported me (SlimVirgin) explicitly stated that I did not violate the WP:3RR. I have since learned from Wallyfromdilbert that the 3RR does not constitute the definition of edit warring, but still, couldn't you just have given me a warning or something? Anyway, I see this is only for 24 hours, and I was actually planning on taking a break anyway, so I won't appeal this block. I'll take your advice & take the editing a bit slower in the future. M . M 22:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Good. Do you realize that your signature is almost invisible? At least on my screen. Bishonen | talk 22:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Yeah, I was actually just thinking about that. I'm still experimenting with the coding here. :) M . M 22:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

VwM.Mwv - if you get reverted, please don't edit the page again for 30 hours - just talk and listen. 3RR is not an entitlement. In regards to an alleged ARBPIA topic ban - AFAICT VwM.Mwv is not under such a ban - he is under this limitation, which means he may not edit talk pages of pages under the WP:ARBPIA3#General Prohibition as long he is not ECP - which applies to pages "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". The Holocaust and its talk page are not reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict - WP:ARBPIA3#General Prohibition does not apply to the page. Icewhiz (talk) 06:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that editing about the Holocaust does not fall under ARPBIA3. But I also agree that the block for edit warring was valid. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

File:AnCap Meme Ball.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AnCap Meme Ball.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Inserting sources...

When you insert a source into an already sourced paragraph, you must make sure that the new source you've inserted actually supports all of the information. So for example - say you have:

This is sentence A. This is sentence B. This is sentence C.<ref>Ref A</ref>

If you then insert a new source:

This is sentence A, with clause 1.<ref>Ref B</ref> This is sentence B. This is sentence C.<ref>Ref A</ref>

Ref B has to support not just "with clause 1." but also "This is sentence A." This is elementary editing practices, and elementary sourcing practices. I strongly strongly urge you to read ALL of the help pages on sourcing and referencing before continuing to try to edit high profile articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: In this case, I agree the addition was unnessecary for the reasons you noted in your edit summary. But for future cases, can't I just move down both sources to the end of the paragraph so that they won't be re-posted too much? M . M 14:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

no, you can’t, because how will a future reader know what source sources what information? We must be precise and place sources on the information they support so that readers can find the supporting sources. (P.s. please don’t ping me if I’ve started a discussion...I will we watching the page I started a discussion on so the ping is just annoying) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Reverting

Having returned from a block for edit warring at The Holocaust, you've gone right back to it. If this continues, you risk being topic-banned or blocked indefinitely. It seems that Yunshui did impose an indefinite block on 15 February, then 331dot unblocked because Icewhiz agreed to be a mentor. Icewhiz, can you confirm that this mentoring is happening? The Holocaust article is too important to mess around with, and having to deal with these reverts is time-consuming. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I am indeed trying to provide guidance. VwM.Mwv - please back off at The Holocaust - I suggest you do not edit there again until you are much more experienced. This is a large, important article - with some 34 pages of talk page archives, consistent citations, and established consensus on many details. Your editing of this article comes across as an "elephant in the china shop" - breaking references (or copying references from another article in Harvard notation - that do not exist in the target article) - is a pretty big deal for some editors. Most other articles aren't as "touchy" here. And again - please do not edit any article after you've been reverted - wait 30 hours for your next edit - even if it is an addition or anything else. Icewhiz (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I try to have patience, but this whole shtick is just getting more & more pathetic. All I did now was correct Eichmann's month of execution, elaborate on his indictments, link to the main article, make it an independent paragraph, and make a few grammar fixes. All that seems to have been accepted, except for the independent paragraph part (for some reason). And I didn't go "right back to edit warring" on the Holocaust - I went right back to editing a wide range of acticles, including this one, which I did not make even one revert on it since my latest block. M . M 17:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Yes, that seems like a good idea for now. It's not worth spending my time editing an article where >50% of my edits get reverted anyway. Though, I might be active on its talk page within the considerable future. M . M 17:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Please indent your posts - you should've added "::" at the beginning of your response. Some articles - e.g. The Holocaust - are at a state where every comma, every phrase, every citation - is the subject of scrutiny, and may require protracted discussion. Not all Holocaust articles are like this. If you want to edit Holocaust material - try editing one of the many-many sub topics - e.g. Category:Ghettos in Nazi-occupied Europe some of these. Or perhaps pages from Category:Ghetto uprisings. Some notable resistance groups - e.g. Working Group (resistance organization) (but this is a GA - please avoid editing GAs and FAs for now) did not exist until recently (and others - are still missing). There are plenty of less developed articles you can work on - and you'll probably get less pushback - as many of these articles need expansion. They often lack sources and have many problems. Do however "play nice" with whomever is watching the page (possibly the article creator, or an established editor who knows the ins and outs of what is there). Icewhiz (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Okay, I'll take a look. M . M 18:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

VwM.Mwv, you did revert again after the latest block. You added the tabloid phrase "major Holocaust organizer Adolf Eichmann" multiple times to The Holocaust during your last series of reverts, and you reverted to it again twice today, at 8:06, 25 Feb, and 14:27, 25 Feb. You clearly knew that you were restoring that phrase, because your second revert's edit summary today was "Well, he wasn't known for his cooking...". If that kind of serial reverting continues, there or anywhere else, you're likely to be reported and blocked indefinitely at some point. Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring carefully. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Well, that part was left removed per my initiative after I realized that the Nuremberg defendants a few sections above were linked to but described. It's still not edit warring because the stated reason for its original removal was lack of sources, which I then added. Anyway, I'll archive this discussion in about half-an-hour unless there's anything else. M . M 18:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Please don't keep archiving these threads before people have had a chance to respond. "[T]hat part was left removed per my initiative" doesn't mean it wasn't edit warring. You added it, and someone reverted you. At that point, you stop and go to talk. You don't restore or partially restore it. Also, you need to pay more attention to your edits. Today you added a link to one of the Nuremberg trials even though the surrounding text placed it in 1958. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Simple rule - if anyone reverts you, do not edit the article for the next 30 hours - and take it to talk. End of the day - disputes are solved on the talk page. Icewhiz (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Non-free content use

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload files. However, it appears that one or more of the files you have uploaded or added to a page, specifically User:VwM.Mwv/Userbox, may fail our non-free policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted file of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The photographers who took File:Reichstag flag original.jpg and File:Ayn Rand by Talbot 1943.jpg may be dead, but that doesn't automatically mean the the photos themselves are no longer protected by copyright. The files are currently licensed as non-free content for use on Wikipedia and this means that each use of the files needs to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy is quite restrictive and one of these restrictions (WP:NFCC#9) is that non-free content may only be used in the article namespace. This means no user pages and no userboxes as explained in WP:UP#Non-free files and WP:UBX#Caution about image use.

Now, if you feel these files are licensed incorrectly (sometimes that does happen), you can start a discussion about them at WP:FFD or ask for other opinions at WP:MCQ; however, as long as they are licensed as non-free content, you shouldn't re-add them or any other non-free files to User:VwM.Mwv/Userbox. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Can't I just re-upload the images as free wroks (unless there's a way for me to get permission from dead photographers)? I don't want to go through all the beurocracy of discussing incorrectly licenced photos. M . M 11:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

What makes you think the files are free works? You can't just claim something is a free work just because you want it to be free so that you can use it in one of your user boxes; however, if you can establish that they are, then their respective licensing can most likely be converted to an appropriate free license instead. Just because the photographers who took the photos are dead, it doesn't mean that the photos are no longer protected by copyright or that the copyrights are not now held by the photographers heirs or estates. If you look at Commons:Hirtle chart, you'll see that even in cases where the copyright holder has died, the copyright can sometimes remain in effect for quite a long time (sometimes as long as 70 years) after the copyright holder's death (i.e. p.m.a). Moreover, only photos typically published prior to January 1, 1924, are considered old enough to be public domain within the US just for being old photos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post correct by Marchjuly to change "can" to "can't". -- 12:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)]

@Marchjuly: Well, the Reichstag Flag picture is listed as coming from famouspictures.org, and Ayn Rand from wordpress.com. It's obvious that neither one of them is the copyright holder, as these sites exist for the purpose of hosting public domain data. Isn't that proof enough? Can you prove that they are copyrighted by anyone? M . M 12:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Lots of websites host copyrighted content per fair use or fair dealing; Wikipedia does the same as non-free content, but Wikipedia's policy has been purposely made to be much more restrictive. So, the fact that these websites are hosting such photos doesn't mean they are no longer protected by copyright; it could just as easily mean that those websites don't care about the copyright status of the photos. For Wikipedia's purposes, copyright is going to be assumed unless it can be clearly established otherwise; so, I don't need to prove that the photos are copyrighted, but you need to establish that they aren't if you want Wikipedia to treat the files as free or public domain. If you can show that the photos were originally published or released under a free license (like one of the ones listed at WP:ICT/FL) or that their copyright has lapsed and wasn't renewed so that they are public domain for that or some other reason, then their licensing can probably be converted from non-free to free. If you feel so strongly that the licensing is wrong, then perhaps asking about the photos at WP:MCQ or c:COM:VPC might help clarify things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

VwM.Mwv; Things work in reverse on copyright. We aren't trying to prove they are copyrighted. We work from the default position that a work is copyrighted unless proven otherwise. In both cases of these photographs, we don't have proof they are free from copyright. There's a very good chance they are no longer copyrighted. In fact, I'd be surprised if they were. The Ayn Rand image comes from a book from 1943. Such works are public domain if copyright isn't renewed. It's uncommon for books to have their copyright renewed. In fact, only about 7% do. But, we don't know for a fact if it was not renewed, so we have to presume it was. If the copyright was renewed, then the book and the dust jacket image would not be in the public domain until 2038. Similary, the Reichstag photo might not be in the public domain until 2040. I'm sorry it's so complex. But, it's reality in copyright circles. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Okay. But if I find a picture somewhere on the Internet listed as being a free work, can I then upolad it to Wikipedia without the explicit consent of its dead author? M . M 17:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

No. The death of the author of a work does have a role in some cases of copyright, but mostly not. For example, the estate of Prince (musician) still owns and protects his copyrighted works, even though he is dead. In the cases of works first published or registered in the U.S., works can be protected for 70 years following the death of the creator. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: So how will I know whether it's a free work if I can't even trust its licensing on the page where it was originally uploaded? Do I have to call every government in the world and ask for a full list of works copyrighted in their countries? M . M 11:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• I understand your frustration. Copyright is an area where there are lots of twisted paths. It can be quite tricky. Just treat everything you find on the Internet as copyrighted, non-free. From there, we have to do a case by case evaluation of the image and its source. If you're uncertain about a particular image somewhere, let us know and we'll take a look at it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Okay. Well, thanks for telling me. M . M 13:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to say, I really appreciate your willingness to listen and learn. So often we run into people who upload copyrighted works that we can't use, and they just get mad. I also wanted to give you a link to this; Gratis versus libre. Wikipedia is founded on the principal that we are libre. Many people unfortunately think that because something is free, it is libre. I.e., you find it on the net somewhere and it didn't cost you anything to download it, so it's free. The kind of mistake you made in this is similar, but your course of action sets you apart and above many others who refuse to learn, and in some cases continue to upload copyright violations anyway. Kudos to you! --Hammersoft (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Thanks again! Just to be sure though, can I upload an image to Wikipedia under a free license if it's listed as such on the website where I found it, and I'm fairly certain it's accurate? Or should I notify/consult someone first? M . M 21:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Swing it by us first. That's not policy, just a suggestion. Do you have a URL? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

User boxes

Hello M. M. I noticed a user box at User:VwM.Mwv/Userbox where you claim to hate Islam. This most probably can be formulated to avoid the word "hate". I actually suggest to remove it, but it's your call. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Well, the word "Islam" specifically links to Criticism of Muhammad#Aisha where the "prophet" Muhammad's (Police Be Upon Him!) child rape is exposed. And it explicitly states that I don't hate Muslims, so I'm not sure how this could be misinterpreted. But sure, I'll think about it. M . M 01:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not something that needs "thinking about", it's something that needs removing. It's a violation of WP:UBCR and WP:POLEMIC and is wholly contrary to the concept co-operative editing. Whilst you are welcome to hate whatever or whomever you like in your own time, on Wikipedia the expression of your intolerance is not acceptable. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you remove this VwM.Mwv - think about what you would think of a user who had a user box "I hate Judaism, not Jews" - would such a user box antagonize you? A userbox such as this invites confrontation - instead of dialogue. Icewhiz (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind. I, too, hate many parts of every religion. But especially Islam because of its child rapist "prophet" and totalitarian nature. Anyway, I'm working on revising that userbox right now. M . M 09:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Well an a "I hate Atheism, not atheists" (or any other X - choose some other label that you self-identify with). The English Wikipedia has a whole slew of editors (including, for instance, editors from Islamic countries) - you don't want to come off as someone who is opposed to someone else's identity. Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I can see your point. My new version of the userbox about Islam & Muhammad is entirely factual instead of semi-opinionated. M . M 10:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Does not matter - remove this. We can debate the facts here until we are blue (including the cultural context 1400 years ago in the Middle East - or Europe - Droit du seigneur is a myth or not). That user box is deeply offensive to most Muslims here (and quite a few non-Muslims) - and it is a bad way to make a first impression - or any impression at all. Icewhiz (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest to remove the userbox about Islam entirely Shrike (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, what about this? I added "According to Islamic Hadith", and changed "rape" to "sex". That's not even slightly controversial. I might also point out that many users have userboxes about very controversial issues like gender inequality and gender pay gap, presenting perceived institutional discrimination (in the West) as fact. M . M 10:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of a userbox is to say something about the user. Userboxes are not a place for "fun facts", no matter how "fun" they might be for you. Your approach here - refusing to do as several editors have asked and remove the userbox, instead trying to figure out how you can wiggle around Wikipedia's rules to promulgate your own point of view - is exactly the reason I was opposed to unblocking you last week. Remove the userbox, or expect to find yourself at WP:ANI in the very near future. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

See User talk:VwM.Mwv#Our relationship - I am done playing games. Either this ceases now - or we are done here.Icewhiz (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

All right, I'll remove it. But for the record, this is pretty discriminatory against politically incorrect historical facts. Note: I tried to write this a few times during the last minutes, but was blocked due to conflicting edits. M . M 10:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Also - please cease editing Nazi gun control argument - I think you might not realize just how contentious gun control is in the US - and by extension among Wikipedia editors. You are stepping into a very big editorial minefield by editing this article. Icewhiz (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  I'm already finished there. I've added all the reliable information I intend to. In fact, my edits had nothing to do with the current gun control in the US. I simply clarified the argument's thesis & added more neutral language. M . M 09:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, due to US politics/discourse, any and all articles related to gun control are very much tied to US politics on Wikipedia. If you want to wade into this - do so after you've gained more editing experience - this is potentially much more contentious than articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict.Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right about that. M . M 10:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Nazi gun control argument

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) 10:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, "The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, including this article." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: This is unnessecary. I've already stated that I'm done editing that article for now. But just out of curiosity, what are the sanctions, and how do they apply? M . M 10:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure. But as far as I can tell, pages with that "discretionary sanctions" template are pages that admins don't tolerate a lot of disruption on. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I'll try to keep my eyes up for such templates.

@Snooganssnoogans: Also, I'm not edit warring. Each edit was unique, and nobody has raised any objections about my latest edit. Please self-revert your notice at the top of this section. M . M 10:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

VwM.Mwv - please - until you actually understand what is an is not a revert (and any edit may be a revert - and unique edits to different bits may each count as a revert) - no editing to an article, for 30 hours, after someone has challenged you (by reversion, talk, user talk, whatever). Icewhiz (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I never said I didn't make any revert - I did in fact make one revert (according to your definition). But does that constitute edit warring? From what I've read, no. Please correct me if I'm wrong. M . M 10:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

per WP:AGF you will comply with below within 20 minutes. It is more complicated than that. Even a just plain addition of a piece of info may constitute a revert if said content was previously in the article (added by another user, removed by another user). Look at this this way - multiple users are claiming you are edit warring (including some who never interacted with you) - it quite likely this group of long term Wikipedians know a thing or two. Disputes aren't resolved by rapid-fire editing anyway - this isn't going to help to insert challenged content. If you do as I request - cease editing for 30 hours the article itself (after any challenge) - and attempt to discuss on the talk page - you won't get into edit warring trouble for short term edits. (this does not resolve everything - if you revert every two days, the same content, 10 times in a row - that will be edit warring as well). Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Yeah, that's why I usually initiate the talk page discussions, but it's sometimes seen as edit warring anyway. Maybe I need to do it even earlier (after the first revert, regardless of if it came from me or someone else)? M . M 12:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Whether you are reverted, challenged on the talk page, challenged via an edit summary (not an "undo" of your edit - but someone addressing you in a summary) - STOP editing the article, don't edit it against for 30 hours, and (if you contest the challenge) open/join a talk page discussion.Icewhiz (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Got it! 👍 M . M 12:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Our relationship

I am done playing games. You will remove, within 20 minutes of your next edit to Wikipedia, any reference to Islam or Muslims from your user page. You will not post any disparaging userbox/statement towards any group (religious or otherwise) on your user page or elsewhere. You will refrain from any userbox/statement that may be perceived as offensive by a large groups of people. You may have a right to express such opinions (debatable). Your statements may be factual. It does not matter - it is not conductive to building an encyclopedia (and too many users have spent time trying to explain this to you), and it promotes conflict rather than collaboration. I am not willing to be associated with you should such statements continue to be present on your user page (or elsewhere). Should these statements not be removed within 20 minutes of your next edit to Wikipedia - I am done mentoring and advocating for you. Icewhiz (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Copy-pasting from the above section: All right, I'll remove it. But for the record, this is pretty discriminatory against politically incorrect historical facts. Note: I tried to write this a few times during the last minutes, but was blocked due to conflicting edits. M . M 10:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Alert: firearms regulation topics

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 governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. 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.

February 2019

You've been asked by your Wiki mentor to stay away from the Holocaust / Gun control topics, yet you continue to display the same WP:NOTHERE behaviour. Please follow your mentor's advice. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring goes both ways. Please see your talk page & restore the NPOV template that you removed prematurely. I'd also appreciate if you could add a "not in citation given" template seeing as some of the text contradicts its own sources. Several editors have objected to the current version. M . M 21:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I stand by my statement that I am not interested in editing that article at the moment. I'd rather participate (occasionally) in the talk page discussion that I initiated. M . M 21:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I told you to stay off Gun Control. You have edited the article + the talk page since. Please stop - no edits to this topic area at all - not to talk pages nor to articles. The same applies to other items in the NO list above. This topic area is one of the most fraught topic areas in Wikipedia - I want to see editing articles with less conflict prior to getting anywhere close to gun control.Icewhiz (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Well, it's not worth wasting my time on anyway because of these continuous activist edits. This is why people don't trust Wikipedia on these issues. M . M 21:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Please read this carefully because it's going to be the last comment I bother making on the topic for a while: The neutrality of that article is disputed, whether you like it or not. You should do Wikipedia a service and restore at least one of the templates I recommended until talk page consensus is reached. M . M 21:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

If you add the "neutrality disputed" template to Nazi gun control argument one more time, or if you send another retaliatory edit warring template to a user, I will block you for disruptive editing. I hope that's quite clear. You needn't bother to tell me that you've already stated you've stopped editing the article. I note you said so here, but you nevertheless [added the template again some hours later. Just stop, please. Bishonen | talk 16:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC).

Editing plan

Thank you for the removal above. I have another request - you are under quite a bit of scrutiny (just looking at the amount of admin comments on your page, indicates this). I want to discuss an editing plan with you - which topics you will edit and which you will not. Let begin with what not for now, please:

1. No WP:GA (green plus sign) or WP:FA (brown star) articles. These articles are very developed, often have well established consensus, and established editors there might WP:BITE.
2. No The Holocaust.
3. Nothing in the hardcore of American Politics (WP:AP2), Gun Control (WP:ARBGC), Arab-Israeli conflict (WP:ARBPIAINTRO, WP:ARBPIA, WP:ARBPIA2, WP:ARBPIA3). If you edit around the edges (e.g. an obscure mayor in Indiana, or Herzliya (has a section on the airport's use as a military base in 1948) - that's OK. But no high profile politicians (e.g. Rashida Tlaib or Donald Trump), terror attacks, wars (e.g. Six-Day War, or 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict), etc. These are areas with a lot of editorial conflict, and special editing rules (e.g. WP:1RR instead of WP:3RR, special page rules).

What yes: (I'm basing this off of what I see you are editing).

1. Israeli politics (as long as not extremely conflict related - e.g. please avoid Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People).
2. Libertarian issues (as long as not in AP2).
3. Israeli companies and ventures (e.g. SpaceIL).

If you want to do small scale editing on something that isn't in the above - you don't have to ask me. If you want to get involved in a new topic area - please run it by me first - ask. I am willing to consider specific articles as an exception for the NO list as well. I am fairly responsive, and if it isn't something full of trouble - I'll simply say yes. Please create User:VwM.Mwv/EditPlan - and make a NO / YES list there - both of which will increase in length. Thank you. Icewhiz (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I don't have a full edit plan just yet, and about 1/3 of my edits are spontaneous (e.g. I stumble upon a small error that I want to fix; or I stumble upon an article in which significant information that I know of is absent, in which case I add it along with one or more reliable source). I'll create that page & add all articles/edits that could be slightly controversial, regardless of whether those edits are planned or spontaneous. Looking forward to your input. M . M 15:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Small spontaneous edits (as long as not on the NO list) - OK without asking (and you can ask to insert the topic area / broaden a topic area in anticipation of further edits). Big ones - ask first if it isn't on the YES list. Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note: I've now created the User talk:VwM.Mwv/Edit plan page. M . M 09:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Observation & request

1. Please don't archive so quickly. I archive once every few months. Some editors use a bot who does it one a week - or every few days. But you're archiving every day - and closing talk sections in a manner that comes off as unilateral. Don't archive faster than once a week - and I hope once you stop editing high-profile topics - and settle into less conflict prone editing zones - you'll stop attracting the attention you are attracting.
2. Sometimes saying less, is more. You don't need to put in the last word (e.g. as you did last night making multiple announcements you're no longer editing the article - you could've just told me - "got it" - and that would've been the end of that). You don't need to write reply after reply (see WP:TLDR). Think about it.

Icewhiz (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

In terms of Wikipedia:Etiquette - if you revert someone on your talk page, archive them (shortly after they posted), or Template:Hidden archive top them - it's the equivalent of saying "back off, go away, we're done talking". I know you got the advice to archive that long page of initial warnings and blocks (and you should have) - but that was true for that unique situation. Anyways - this is how such an action comes across here. Icewhiz (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

From Levivich

Hi VwM.Mwv. I became very concerned when I saw you tell Icewhiz that you "Got it", meaning you would take his advice to stay off certain pages, but then you went back to editing the same page within a matter of hours. Worse, your edit was "edit warring" (restoring after a revert). Even worse still, when another editor pointed this out to you on your talk page, you argued with him that you were right, and it didn't seem to matter to you at all that you basically broke a promise to Icewhiz. It seemed to me you were ignoring Icewhiz, disrespecting the time and effort he's put in to helping you, and ultimately wasting his valuable time.

Everybody here is a volunteer, including you and including me. Every time an editor comes here and edits any page, they are donating their time to the project. I value that donation very highly, particularly from experienced users (whose time is worth more to the project because they can make more improvements faster). I hope you value Icewhiz and Bishonen's time like I do, and I hope you realize that not everybody gets the kind of personal attention (and extreme patience) that they and others have been donating to help you personally.

Please do not waste the time of these volunteers. If you don't want their help, just say so, so they can spend their time elsewhere. If you do continue to accept their help, then please do your best in good faith to follow their advice, be honest with them, and keep your promises. I hope that you do continue to accept Icewhiz's help and following his advice, and that you keep contributing to the encyclopedia. Thanks and good luck. Leviv ich 22:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: Thank you. (In case you're wondering about the delay of this reply, I was offline for quite some time, and did not scroll through my talk page until now.) M . M 14:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)