The Austria Barnstar of National Merit
		Presented to User Steeletrap. For tireless editing to improve difficult articles on WP SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sexual assaults were as you point out, assaults. The dressing room visits are sexual harassment since trump owned the pageant at the time. Please don't confuse the two. He did both of them so please stop removing sexual harassment references from the article. Trump is guilty of doing both. Octoberwoodland (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Steeletrap. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Milo Yiannopoulos, without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Distelfinck (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for the phrase "very often" on the Milo Yiannopolous talk page, and the occurences I could find don't back up what you say --Distelfinck (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--

You need to provide sources for your additions. You repeat adding this in, without giving a source for this, without addressing what I said in this edit summary --Distelfinck (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated 1RR on Milo Yiannopoulos (Edits: 1 2 3.) Please self-revert. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edit myself. Please be more careful in the future. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have again violated 1RR on Milo Yiannopoulos (Edits: 1, 2) If the 1RR restrictions are not clear to you they're described here: Wikipedia:1RR#Other_revert_rules. Self revert or I will submit a complaint against you to Arbitration Enforcement. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

In looking at your recent edits to Richard Epstein, I'd like you to consider whether the content you added could be cited to some sort of reliable sources. If so, they should be added to the section on Writings rather than to the intro. Depending on how significant your added content was, it might merit a summary mention (without citations) in the intro. I'll not revert you right now, but you should try to provide sources and place your content in the correct place in the article. Thanks. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JC; if you give me til tomorrow i"ll add the citations. Tied up right now. I understand if you feel compelled to revert in the short run. Steeletrap (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems White whirlwind was not going to be patient. Try again tomorrow. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see similar potential problems with some of your recent edits at Richard Posner. That law review article you referenced is a bare URL, which is not a good way to cite a source. Can I also suggest that you make better use of WP:Edit summaries? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steeltrap could you please add edit summaries for any significant changes to the Religious views of Adolf Hitler, stick to the four paragraph wikpedia lay out for the introduction and remember not to add material not in sources such as "the judges at Nuremberg" determined", when the source only says that the prosecutors prepared a brief of evidence etc. Best wishes Ozhistory (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was inappropriate in many ways. If I see something like that again I'll be dropping a topic ban. ~Awilley (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not a good edit w.o. some discussion, but hardly a violation, from what I can see. Have a look: [1] -- The edit shouldn't have been dropped in w.o. prep maybe, but I see ten worse edits per day in American Politics articles. Maybe a ^{[citation needed]} is needed. SPECIFICO talk 18:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adjwilley, why was it inappropriate? Do you disagree that Trump has promoted conspiracy theories? Are you a birther? Do you believe Ted Cruz' dad killed JFK? Steeletrap (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that was inappropriate! :) SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few reasons why the edit was inappropriate.

1. Calling him a conspiracy theorist in the Lead section is inappropriate when he is not called that in the body of the article.
2. In a 3-paragraph Lead section, the amount of detail in that addition is a violation of WP:WEIGHT in a highly visible BLP.
3. The examples you give are gratuitous given the "controversial and false" sentence preceding your addition.
4. "He has been described as" is textbook WP:WEASEL.
5. Who is "the President" you refer to?

The reason I jumped straight to a tban warning was because I've seen this kind of drive-by BLP violation from you before, and I distinctly remember User:Drmies warning you about adding links to child rape in the Lead of the trump article. (I don't have a diff for the warning but here's the edit: [2] [3]) ~Awilley (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you jumped to a tban warning because you're an old maid who takes relish in your petty moderator powers. RS describe Trump as a conspiracy theorist, his campaign was characterized by conspiracy theories, and his political career in the Republican Party was fueled by the Birther movement. A bold edit noting that he has been described as a CT was not a violation of policy; I am not edit warring to put it back in.

Trump has been accused of child rape. This particular accusation is not notable enough for the lede, but is included in the article about his sexual assault allegations. Steeletrap (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:Consensus:

In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.

You want to add something to the article Milo Yiannopoulos. This getting removed is a strong indication there's no consensus, so this is a good time to discuss this --Distelfinck (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ben Stein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Expelled. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your concern about these issues is totally understandable, but you have to review both the prior discussions (which were extensive on a number of things you changed) as well as the reliable sources before changing things based on your own gist of the subject matter. A number of your edits are blatantly against consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ron Paul newsletters, without giving a valid reason – such as reverting vandalism – for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please remember, you are topic banned from editing anything related to the Mises Institute. This includes material about Ron Paul. – S. Rich (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the revert; because Paul is apparently listed as a Mises Institute "scholar" (I had no idea), this is a technicala violation of the TB and I apologize.

While your revert was appropriate, your rationale is bunk. Conspiracy theorists like Swann are not RS for anything apart from the mad ideas that are rattling around their brains. Steeletrap (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coming here again for rationale on why you falsely edited Shaun King's page? Please provide rationale for why you put down that Jeffrey King was his ADOPTIVE father instead of his biological Father, as indicated on his birth certificate? I look froward to you reversing your changes. Thanks! Swreynolds7 (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

King says his bio father was a light-skinned (mixed-race) black man, and that Jeffrey King is his adoptive father. Per WP:BLP, we have to go off what he says about his family and race unless it's proven that he's lying. Steeletrap (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

re: Religious Views of Adolph Hitler JerryRussell (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware. But don't see how NAP would fall under that. Anyway, I hope you can jump in and deal with some of the tendentious editing on that page, which currently claims that several eminent Western philosophers were Rothbardian libertarians without knowing it. Steeletrap (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm DrFleischman. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Richard B. Spencer, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits of this version of the page white people as portions of the text you added/edited appeared to be unsourced or synthesized from inferences from the existing sources. A record of your version of the page has been kept and I'd like you to discuss your changes (and the sources on which they are based) on the talk page. Thank you. Edaham (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this, the 6 month topic-ban was enacted on 15 May 2017. It will expire on Nov 15th. It has not yet expired nor was it expired in October. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake regarding the date of expiration: I tied it to the beginning of the arbitration, not the decision. By all means revert any edits that you regard as unduly insensitive to Milo. Steeletrap (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to respond with "Understandable" but I could not find an arbitration case against you that began earlier. All I can find is this. Can you direct me to the case? James J. Lambden (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, dopey: If I were going to blatantly violate a t-ban, I wouldn't do it in broad daylight on a highly controversial page. I'd get a sock. If you want to ban me or whatever I don't much care but I'm not going to deal with your soothsaying regarding my intentions. Steeletrap (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said you confused the case start date with the case end date but from what I can tell no "case" exists. I am trying to determine whether I'm mistaken. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and will continue to if you can explain your reasoning.

I did not impugn your intentions but it is not encouraging that you have made your first edit to Steve Bannon to oppose my recent !vote. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Steeletrap, it's a pretty clear violation of WP:NPA to address other editors as "dopey" as you have now twice [4] [5] Many admins I know would block on sight. ~Awilley (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: Frankly "dopey" is relatively mild. Another editor has repeatedly called me a "creep", a "stalker" and "obsessed" and nothing has been done despite my complaints. I am more concerned by the nonchalant topic-ban violations and seemingly retaliatory !vote. I would like an answer to my case request question. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that you know that NeilN's enactment of the topic ban (seen here) does not mean that once the topic ban expires, you should go back to your same contested style of editing at the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who would block me for calling him dopey is a hypersensitive marshmallow (a term that applies to many WP admins, admittedly). Steeletrap (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just answer JJL's question above. On the surface it looks like you violated the topic ban and then made up an excuse that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. ~Awilley (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I didn't. I thought the TB had expired. Which--happily--it will in a couple weeks. I'm not sure what link I clicked on to make me think it began in April, but there you have it. Steeletrap (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thanked you for adding the number of women who have accused Weinstein. Then I noticed it had been taken out due to another editor noting that HW had been fired before number of accusers reached 80. So I added a source for the 50. If you have a source for the 80 please add. I think you were brilliant to add the number and we know down the road if it just keeps being called "alleged harassment" readers may not see the magnitude of this.Kmccook (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Steeletrap. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Watch it with the reverts on Knights of Columbus, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

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:Steeletrap reported by User:Lionelt (Result: ). Thank you. – Lionel^(talk) 08:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if you wish to say anything here feel free to put it here on your talk page with a request for someone to copy it over and any of your talkpage watchers will take care of it. ~Awilley (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Steeletrap is where it is all laid out. If you evade your block again by using an IP to edit while blocked (or in any other way), I'm likely to just indef block you the next time. Feel free to read WP:GAB or better yet, just wait it out. Hopefully you will just get the point and edit productively when you return in two weeks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, is there any way I can prove my innocence? I am not this IP.

I agree it's a remarkable coincidence. But consider: Why wouldn't I have just waited two days? Perhaps I'm being framed or something.

I think I may quit WP. I'm tired of the lack of due process. Steeletrap (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem insistent on inserting the claim that Evola believed in ghosts and telepathy when the source you provide does not substantiate this information: https://www.litencyc.com/php/speople.php?rec=true&UID=12998

for alchemy, the source states that "Evola authored numerous works on alchemy, magic, Oriental philosophy, mysticism and Tradition", that "he was in touch for a time with British Orientalist John Woodroffe – and study of various texts on alchemy, magic and Oriental philosophy, particularly Tibetan Lamaism and Vajrayanist tantric yoga." and that "This entailed intensive study of primary texts on alchemy, Buddhism, Taoism, Hermeticism and various other schools of esoteric thought." but does not provide the context that you seem to imply, that he believed in alchemy in the traditional sense.

I can understand the desire to discredit Evola, but we don't need to do so with WP:Fake information that exists in no source.

He was also not a nationalist, instead preferring a right wing EU.

Please correct this to help ensure the integrity of the encyclopedia.Golgotha12 (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you self-revert before you are blocked for violating WP:1RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to report you the next time you call me a "clown" ([6]) or accuse me of "spinning" for Richard Spencer ([7], [8]) for enforcing our BLP policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• You're edit warring now when you were just given a DS warning by NeilN? You know this article is under 1RR, yes? I could take to you AE right now. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• You just violated 1RR again with more BLP violations. Are you begging for a block? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • I hadn't seen these comments when I reverted you. Whether or not "r far-right extremists and counter-protesters clashed violently" was NPOV, changing it to "after an alt-right supporter drove his car into a group of left-wing protesters" is a clear violation of NPOV and a misrepresentation of the source, which said "counter-protestors." Doug Weller talk 14:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In an effort to reduce some of the tension, did you know that I personally spearheaded the effort to call Spencer a white supremacist instead of a white nationalist? And I've personally swatted down numerous attempts to change it back? It's all in the talk page archives. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the enemy. Do you understand that? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see two possibilities based on your editing on Spencer. One is that you're the enemy (a Spencer apologist). The other is that you are a posturing legalist, whose legalism is getting in the way of productive (accurate, topical) editing. I'm happy to assume the second one and work forward. Steeletrap (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's an improvement, but I think you missed where I mentioned that I spearheaded the effort to call Spencer a white supremacist instead of a white nationalist. I don't know how that translates into being a posturing legalist whose legalism is getting in he way of productive editing. If you're complaining that I believe in following community standards, then I guess I'm guilty has charged. You may be just passing through, but I'm the one who's been defending our content from the Spencer shills bigots for the last year plus. The most effective tactic is to explain to them how our core policies work and to explain how our content complies with them. So when you add content that doesn't comply with our core policies, it makes our collective jobs harder. You see? I'm on your side. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This set of edits is in violation of an active arbitration remedy (do not restore content without consensus). Please self-revert immediately. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I will leave the Spencer article alone if you will stop following me around. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• 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, and seek consensus with them. 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.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Roseanne Barr, you may be blocked from editing. You have to use direct in-line citation in a Biography of a Living Person, from an independent credible source. You cannot speculation/personal opinions/personal conjectures see WP:BLP and WP:RS. MissTofATX (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is against policy (see WP:TALKDD. Please do not do itSlatersteven (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was copy and pasting my post from another forum. I wasn't deleting a post by another user; I was deleting my (accidental) reproduction of his post from another forum. Steeletrap (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh I see now. OK.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my original block to a warning. Going through revisions on the rapidly changing article 1RR is not clear. However, the discretionary sanctions are clear that "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." You did not seek consensus on the talk page following the removal of your edit when it was clearly disputed. Please discuss such edits on the talk page instead of leaving remarks in edit summaries as you did. Please let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

THanks. I really appreciate you reversing your decision and acknowledging the mistake. I actually had self-reverted the change (the opposite of 1RR). Steeletrap (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to these edits, that does not look like a self-revert to me. That can be viewed as gaming the system by "making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged" (per talk page template). Politrukki (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steeletrap, you can't add controversial unsourced material about living persons to any page like you did here. You should very well know that that is not allowed under BLP. Politrukki (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's your source for the statement that Blasey Ford is not going to appear? News reports are that it's uncertain. JTRH (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise self-reverting this edit; adding sources may address the issue brought up by MONGO but still would be a violation of the consensus-required before restoration restriction (also - I'd advise finding non-opinion sources, especially as the sentence you've inserted states "partisan conspiracy theories" as fact) Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was challenging that edit here but should have made it clear not just because it was unsupported.--MONGO (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the revert seems to be a violation of the "Consensus required" sanction that "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". A self-revert is definitely a good idea. ~Awilley (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the self-reverts as a result of controversial edits without consensus are getting out of hand. Moving forward, if you are contemplating making a controversial change to the article please seek consensus on the talk page first. If you are not sure or have any doubt as to whether the edit could be construed as controversial, do not make the change, seek consensus on the talk page first. This method is a best practice when editing controversial topics. The above comments from various editors (and my own warning to you) clearly show a pattern in your editing style regarding this article that can be characterized as disruptive editing. Any further controversial edits you make without consensus (whether you ultimately self-revert or not) will be met with a discretionary sanction, which may include a block and/or a topic ban. Please edit carefully. KnightLago (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I'm not blocking you for the personal attacks in these edits on Awilley's page is that I have a certain understanding of venting after being sanctioned. (Even though you apparently took it with insouciance at first.[9]) If another admin comes by to block you for it, I don't mean to stop them with this warning. Showing such disrespect and discourtesy affects the atmosphere of this place, and is depressing not just for the target of your attacks, but for anybody who reads them. If you do escape a block, I'd advise you to take a little break until you feel capable of courtesy towards fellow editors. Bishonen | talk 14:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, Steeletrap. 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)[reply]

I've removed some original research. Surely you know our policies on searching and not adding our own opinions? Doug Weller talk 13:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a couple years since I checked in, and I really don't care enough to edit it myself, but have you seen this steaming pile of... mess?

In response to the University determination, Krauss produced a 51-page appeal document responding to the allegations, including a counter-claim that a photo claimed to be of Krauss grabbing a woman's breast was actually showing his hand moving away from the woman.[33][third-party source needed]

I'm not at all surprised, but I don't have words to describe how inexcusable this is that it's on Wikipedia. But you know, Odin forbid I should edit the page to say, "Whereas some critics who have two brain cells to rub together point out that is the lousiest defense they have ever heard."-- JCaesar (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]