User talk:184.88.43.62

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Create new pages and rename pages
Edit semi-protected pages
Upload images
Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without an account, your IP address (184.88.43.62) is used to identify you instead.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. ^{(talk to me) (contributions)} @ 04:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Hello, I'm Stesmo. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Cheese (recreational drug) has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Stesmo (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate passage

The passage in Ben Sasse that you've repeatedly restored after others have deleted it (e.g. diff1, diff2, diff3), is a near-exact duplicate of one that's located elsewhere in the article. In deleting the passage, other editors have noted that it's a duplicate (e.g. diff1, diff2, diff3). You've offered no justification for this, in your edit summaries or at the talk page. This is creating a lot of needless work for your fellow editors. If you believe that there's a good reason for duplicating the passage, please explain it before restoring it once again; and please participate in discussion with other interested editors rather than just restoring the passage over and over. — Ammodramus (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raven-Symone and Trump

Hi there, per WP:BRD, when content you submit has been reverted by another user, the burden is yours to seek consensus for inclusion by opening a discussion on the article's talk page and getting feedback from other editors. Restoring the content simply because you're attached to it, is not conducive to a collaborative project like Wikipedia. I have opened a discussion for you at Talk:Raven-Symoné and you are urged to participate. Please note that restoring the content without achieving consensus is generally considered to be disruptive. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's reach a consensus. Raven-Symone can recant her statement. Then we can remove the political section. Otherwise it is relevant. If a public feature is willing to abandon the nation that they succeeded in over their candidate not winning, it is a big deal.

March 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Raven-Symoné. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Diff: [1] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Raven-Symoné. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Melonkelon (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please note that you've violated, however unintentionally, Wikipedia's three-revert rule. This states that no editor is allowed to perform more than three reverts on any one page within a 24-hour period; edits that undo another editor's actions are considered reverts, whether or not one's used the "Undo" link.

User:Cyphoidbomb and I have both removed the material you inserted re. Donald Trump. You've restored it four times within 7 hours: diff1, diff2, diff3, and diff4. As best I can tell, you haven't changed the material at all in an attempt to find a compromise, and your discussion has been limited to declaring, in so many words, "I disagree" and "I'll remove it if and when Raven-Symonè retracts her statement".

Per WP:3RR, the appropriate action for you to take when you've inadvertently violated the three-revert policy is to undo your own latest reversion. As a new editor, you're not to be faulted for being unaware of the policy; but now that you've been informed, it behoves you to abide by it. — Ammodramus (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you've again violated the three-revert rule, this time at Ben Sasse, with reverts at 02:38, at 03:58, and at 18:29 on March 7, and at 02:55 on March 8. Note that WP:3RR includes "Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior"; a fourth edit at 24 hours and 17 minutes seems to fit this description, especially since each of these four reversions, and two reversions preceding them, inserted an exact duplicate of a sentence that already occurred elsewhere in the article.

Please note, too, that Wikipedia operates on a model of consensus, reached through discussion and compromise. I find no evidence that you've tried to compromise at Ben Sasse, although the other two editors involved (1990'sguy and I) have explained why we disagree with your edits, and I've offered several compromises, including a well-sourced two-paragraph subsection on Sasse v. Trump. You've been similarly uncompromising at Raven-Symoné, where you've refused to change your material despite objections from Cyphoidbomb, Melonkelon, and I; and you've repeatedly re-inserted a Trump-related category at several other articles, including Cher, Barry Diller, Eddie Griffin, Randy Blythe, and Omari Hardwick, despite their removal by Malerooster, Yamaguchi先生, and I.

I assume, based on your editing histories, that you're the same person as KeepingSasseHonest, the creator of Category:Americans promising to leave the country if Trump is elected and Category:Republicans who will disavow the party if Trump is the 2016 nominee. Both categories were put up for deletion discussion on March 5, and both attracted a number of "delete" !votes; the only "keep" to date has been yours. On March 7, KeepingSasseHonest created the empty Category:Republicans vowing to leave party if Trump is 2016 presidential nominee: essentially, the same as one of the categories up for deletion. This looks very much like an attempt to get around the category-deletion process by creating a new category substantially identical to one of the likely-to-be-deleted ones.

Throughout this whole business, you've participated very little in discussion, and your participation has come in the form of comments like "The Trump statement stays" and "I am inclined to keep this section on the page until Ravaven-Symone retracts her statement." I see no willingness to compromise or to take into account the arguments of other Wikipedians: only determination to keep the material you want, exactly as you want it, by repeated reversion. — Ammodramus (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you know what they say about people who assume... Anyways, I agree to your new section "sass vs Trump" with a couple clarifications, which have been made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.43.62 (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid that your latest edit was contrary to Wikipedia policy. Please see WP:NOTOPINION, which explains that Wikipedia is not a venue for advocacy. Phrases like "which is ludicrous because..." and "even though it is clear to the most casual of observers" make arguments for a position, not well-sourced statements of fact.

As part of your insertion, you cite a 2000 column by Trump in which he dissociates himself from David Duke, and use this to support the assertion that Sasse's position is "ludicrous". This is a violation of another of Wikipedia's core policies, "No original research". Specifically, you're citing a fact, but using it to support a conclusion that you've drawn yourself. If reliable sources report that Trump or Trump supporters have made this argument specifically against Sasse's claim, it might not be inappropriate to include a well-sourced statement to that effect; but rather than interdigitating it with Sasse's statements, it should be in the second paragraph, which is devoted to negative reactions to Sasse's position. — Ammodramus (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly inappropriate and it raises strong doubts about the editor's competence. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. IP editor, if you want to harp about your political opinions or muse aloud, get a blog like everyone else. Content at Wikipedia should be presented in a neutral point of view free of your personal opinions and musings. We only care what reliable published sources have to say about any given subject. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, Stop it. The edits that you have made are completely one-sided. Wikipedia is supposed to be a NEUTRAL source of information. The condescending way that you adress me is insulting. I will give you the option to clean up the segment before I need to get the administrators involved. Sasse's accusations are unfounded and the way it is written now does not mention the fact that David Duke never even endorsed Trump and that Trump has disavowed all hate groups, especially Duke and the KKK going back as early as the year 2000. This is fact, not "soapbox". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.43.62 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) An administrator has already been involved. I am an administrator. 2) More administrators will be involved per the note below. Wikipedia is not a forum for your soapboxing or edit-warring. Consensus is determined through discussion, and your repeated resubmission of content that other editors have contested is unjustified and inconsistent with established editing protocols. This content, is clearly soapboxing. "Ludicrous" represents your opinion, which does not belong in the article. If you wanted to rephrase the content so that it is presented in neutral language that doesn't reek of your opinion, that would be fine, but at this point you should still seek consensus for inclusion considering how disruptive your edits have been of late. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably respond to the ANI report. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, BLP violations too. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Rex Tillerson, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. FriyMan (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, I'm RSTech1. I noticed that in this edit to Rex Tillerson, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. RSTech1 (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

To edit, please log in.

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Invented tradition, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 04:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Removal of content related to Israel

You appear to be removing content related to Israel and Zionism without providing edit summaries (eg. at Nabulsi soap and Invented tradition). Please provide an explanation for your edits in the edit summary, and consider discussing in the talk page before removing cited content. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please use English

Regarding your edit on Death of Muammar Gaddafi, use the English "God is great" and not Arabic "Allāhu Akbar". BTW: "Akbar" should be capitalized. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 04:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions regarding areas where you have edited

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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.

Doug Weller talk 20:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may not edit articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict

Editors using IP addresses and any registered user with less than 30 days' tenure or fewer than 500 edits may not edit articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This includes edits such as the one you made to Nabulsi soap. If in doubt, don't. Doug Weller talk 20:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Popcorn, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

October 2017

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Uncontacted peoples. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Kbseah (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for continued disruption, refusal to discuss.

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 ~~~~}}. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

February 2019

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Meritocracy, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mojoworker (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

June 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Uppsala, you may be blocked from editing. bonadea contributions talk 04:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

January 2020

Hello, I'm PraiseVivec. I noticed that you recently removed all content from a page. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. PraiseVivec (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Reply:

It was a non-sequitur of a political nature that has nothing to do with the subject matter. The proper edit for that is removal. I really don't care because the majority of the free world knows that Wikipedia's editing mafia has turned it into an unreliably biased source, which is a shame because previous to 2015 it was fairly neutral. Keep trying to edit reality, because it simply shows you as the hack that you are, and further discredits you.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.