Please don't give the alleged name of the woman in the Ched Evans case. This fails WP:BLPNAME and cannot be reliably sourced due to the court case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a phenomenal source, do not even mention that name here. If you do have such a source, ask me first. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Culture of Israel may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Israeli outpost may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of kibbutzim may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to State of Palestine may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to the page are in violation of 3RR (and also 1RR regulations which apply to all topics related to the Israel-Palestine conflict).--IranitGreenberg (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A moderator settled it. I have not been in violation of 3RR. Thank you for your deep concern though! :) Solntsa90 (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not true. If you mean nableezy, that was just their opinion as they are not an admin. I am and have reviewed the report and found that you did not violate WP:3RR. However, you came perilously close, and you should understand that you can be blocked for edit warring even if you do not violate 3RR. I chose not to do so, but you need to be more careful in the future. What you should be doing is discussing changes on the article talk page and NOT battling in the article without a clear consensus for your changes. If you insist on your changes again, as you did here, you risk being blocked now that you are clearly on notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IranitGreenberg (talk • contribs) 13:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Soltsa90,

I just wanted to tell that if by any chance you are the IP who now edits in Two Hundred Years Together, you should stop using this IP immediately, or you might be blocked per WP:SOCK. I am not telling this is you; I do not really know and have no intention to investigate. I'd like you to contribute here as much as you possibly can; hence this friendly notice. Happy editing, My very best wishes (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can I stop using my IP? I haven't edited that article but once I don't think. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any indication that vandalism or some such is coming from my IP or account? please let me know.Solntsa90 (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that you should only use your named account (this one). You should not edit as an IP, in parallel with your named account (assuming this IP is you; I do not really know). No, I am not telling about any vandalism; the problem would be simply using multiple accounts to make reverts (if there is such problem), and the IP would count as a second account. But whatever. You are very welcome to ignore what I am telling; this is only to inform you about the WP:SOCK policy. If you follow the policy, there is nothing to worry about. My very best wishes (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, if this IP was you, that, for example, would qualify as edit warring using multiple accounts and be a valid reason for your block. What exactly you edit does not matter. Rules are rules. My very best wishes (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see by your recent edit summaries to this article that you are bothered as I am by the association of Juggalos as an "Ally" at the infobox for the Sureños article, and that you have reviewed the source in question & come to a similar conclusion as to how tenuous another editor's interpretation is. I invite you to comment on this at the talk page in the interest of building consensus. Thanks! Boogerpatrol (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nahalat Shiv'a may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Solntsa90. You have new messages at Talk:Arseniy_Yatsenyuk#He_was_born_t.D0.BE_a_family_of_ethnic_Jewish-Ukrainian_or_t.D0.BE_a_family_of_ethnic_Ukrainians.3F.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this diff.[1] Best wishes.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Arseniy Yatsenyuk‎. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please refrain from adding potentially libelous material as per WP:BLP policy. Content that is libelous may be removed immediately, use the talk page to prove your claims first before adding anything. Thank you. Львівське (говорити) 20:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Says the guy who was repeatedly chastised by admins and moderators for anti-semitism... You should perhaps read the link immediately above your post. Solntsa90 (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Львівське (говорити) 22:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Arseniy Yatsenyuk. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

The full report of this case is at this 3RR report (permanent link). I'm also leaving you a notice (below) of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand. Is this a message saying that I am currently under discretionary sanctions, or a warning that they could be imposed? it says "can be" and "if", so I'm not exactly clear.

Solntsa90 (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admins have the power to impose topic bans and do other things in Eastern Europe. Nobody can be sanctioned under these special provisions unless they previously notified of the rules, and now you've been notified. If you read the WP:ARBEE decision it will tell you about the past problems that have motivated these provisions. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi fellow editor Solntsa90, Thanks for your edits and your remarks on my talk page. You raise valid points and compromise is definitely called for here. If it were only you and I debating this, I think we could work it out along the lines of what you're saying. However, since many others have expressed interest in this subject, let's move it to the talk page. Paavo273 (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Hi again User:Solntsa90: Since you asked me specific questions on my talk page that I thought were altogether reasonable, I answered them there. Paavo273 (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Right Sector, you may be blocked from editing. Please refrain from further edit warring as you are doing here or else you may be blocked again. Львівське (говорити) 23:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are restricted to making one revert in any 48 hour period on the article Arseniy Yatsenyuk (including the talk page and any subpages), this restriction expires at 12:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You have been sanctioned due to continued edit warring on the article after having already been recently blocked for edit warring on the article (see also this report on the edit warring noticeboard). The only reason I am imposing this sanction rather than a block or ban is because you are attempting to engage in good faith dispute resolution, and I encourage you to continue to do so.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A word of advice - you have to take this restriction very seriously, and abide by it exactly. If you want advice, just leave a message on my talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not blank sourced material from Wikipedia, as you did at Michelle Kosilek. Thank you. Just Tidying Up (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kosilek is not legally married, this detail of re-marriage cannot be confirmed, and it's not really a pertinent detail that is especially noteworthy to Kosilek's overall biography.

If you can provide a second source confirming Kosilek's marriage to 'Jessica' (the source is so incomplete, 'Jessica' doesn't even have a surname!), then I will reincorporate it back into the article. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: It has come to my attention that you're the primary contributor as well as the original author of the Kosilek article. You wouldn't happen to have a conflict of interest here, would you? I ask you in all sincerity. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "the original author" and I have no connection to the article subject beyond occasionally seeing articles in the news, same as any other person. I expanded the article because the article as it stood was not notable (there are thousands of murders, this one is sensational because of the "ooh it's a man in a dress" aspect). What actually makes this article notable is the legality of transgender health care for prisoners and the possible precedents this case sets. This was not very well described in the previous stub version.

Again, your personal definition of "marriage" as a legal union is not held by everyone, there were marriages long before there was a United States government to recognize them. The source is incomplete but this could be amended by changing the tone with regards to who made the statement. Just Tidying Up (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're making this way too personal, and I could care less about the details of the case: What I care about is the quality of the article and its factuality; Kosilek never married 'Jessica' (in quotations because we have no proof this person even exists!), and we're going by definitions that everyone can abide by, not by arbitrary definitions of marriage: No legal, religious nor cultural authority recognises nor sanctions a marriage between Kosilek and Jessica (who may not even exist), this isn't just about the US government.

The source isn't 'incomplete', its unverifiable and thus renders it WP:SELFPUB. Solntsa90 (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word "execution" mainly means a sentence carried out upon a person who has been convicted at a trial of a criminal offense, and therefore its use is completely inappropriate in this context. And throwing a man in a wheelchair over the side of a boat is a pure terrorist tactic, and nothing else. Some of your edits to the article might have merit individually, but as a group they are unfortunately overall unacceptable. AnonMoos (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Execution' means exactly what it means in this context. They condemned him for being a Jew. however, "Palestinian Terrorists" is truly a POV term, and I'll be working to get such a term on wikipedia as unacceptable, for where do you draw the line? when does 'atrocity' become 'terrorism'? Solntsa90 (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for you, your first two sentences above are completely ridiculous and preposterous -- no trial under any recognized legal system took place, and being a Jew was not a crime even in Nazi Germany! "Terrorists" can be a controversial term when applied to indiscriminately and sweepingly condemn large diverse groupings with a checkered history extending over many decades -- but when applied to a small group like the Achille Lauro hijackers, a functional definition of "terrorist" (i.e. those who unblushingly commit despicable acts for the purpose of terrorizing) is much less controversial. "Terrorism is as terrorism does"... AnonMoos (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When Sicarios in Mexico kill people, don't we use the term "executed"? I doubt many of them got a fair trial before being bludgeoned to death with a bat or beheaded. Solntsa90 (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't believe that's the most common or typical usage. Journalists sometimes speak of "execution-style slayings", but that means a single bullet to the head by organized crime or death squads... AnonMoos (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Russian LGBT propaganda law may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• law'''<ref name=rtnl/> or simply the '''anti-gay law''' in western media) <ref name=newyorker/>) refers to an amendment to the [[Russia]]n [[federal law]] [[On Protecting Children from
• [President of the Russian Federation|President of Russia]] [[Vladimir Putin]] defended early objection to the then-proposed bill in April 2013, stating that "

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• mistake ?. Pluto2012 (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry. I was attempting to revert a user earlier who was going from page to page inappropriately adding country names where he knows he shouldn't have been. My apologies! Solntsa90 (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you have been a voice of reason on several issues regarding Israel. I was wondering if you would be willing to comment on Talk:Israel#NPOV_has_been_removed_from_this_article, specifically on the possible inclusion of both the view that Israel may not be representational democracy as well as the view that Israel is a representational democracy. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have left as message for you on the talk page of that article regarding your recent edits to it. Please read it. Asarelah (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will almost certainly edit the article again, as it it not satisfactory the way it stands and highly infers that all people who follow the cult are antisemitic. However, I will be seeking others involved in the religion wikiproject to weigh in on it, since I know that many here on Wiki push political bias and try to say removal of said political bias are not 'NPOV'.

But, to reiterate, I will wait until other users have commented on the talk page, or at least, have the talk page discussion lead to a satisfactory conclusion.

Solntsa90 (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in my edit summary, previous discussions on the RSN have determined that The Daily Dot has acceptable editorial controls, fact-checking standards and an identifiable staff, and that it thus meets our standards as a reliable source. If you disagree with this prior determination, the thing to do would be to open a new discussion on that page, not to engage in a revert-war. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was not an arbitration, but rather, merely a discussion on a wiki notice board. Merely getting the assurance of a company head that said company does not practice shoddy journalism is not a guarantee whatsoever.

Unless wiki arbitrates that The Daily Dot is an acceptable source to be used in articles, It'll continue to be disqualified from RS under the guideline of primarily publishing internet rumours.

If you can get a bunch of wikipedians/admins to arbitrate on the acceptability of The Daily Dot and a vote goes in favour of The Daily Dot, I'll drop it.

But I reiterate: The Daily Dot fails to meet the basic requirements for RS at wikipedia, primarily due to the fact they rely extensively on internet rumours to substantiate their claims.

Solntsa90 (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is not involved in determining what is and is not a reliable source. Community consensus and discussion are. Your personal opinion about The Daily Dot is interesting, but not supported by any sources nor is it supported by policy or consensus. Existing consensus says The Daily Dot is a reliable source and until and unless that changes, your removals are out of order. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Daily Dot violates basic WP:RS. it isn't a matter for community discussion, as it violates basic wiki rules. Solntsa90 (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I highly suggest you read this: WP:QUESTIONABLE Solntsa90 (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to a community consensus discussion which determines that The Daily Dot is a "questionable" source, or that it "violates basic wiki rules." I have already linked you to a discussion which determines that The Daily Dot is an acceptable reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do you one better and link you to the rules (Might I remind you that wikipedia is not a democracy?):

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities

That is from WP:QUESTIONABLE. Hope that clarifies things. Solntsa90 (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion that the source is questionable is apparent. What is not apparent is any community determination that the source is questionable. To the contrary, the community has determined it to be acceptable. Your personal opinion about the source cannot override community consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The community didn't determine this--in fact, even within the link you gave me, there were reservations about including the Daily Dot as a source. Those discussions are non-binding, and they do not supercede basic rules about WP:RS, which includes no sourcing from websites that publish internet rumours--The Daily Dot is a publisher of internet rumours, has yet to be substantiated aside from a vague and non-binding discussion (with reservations from some participants) about the acceptability of this website.

Sorry, I'll stick with WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY since those are actually rules. Solntsa90 (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're likely to be sanctioned for edit-warring against community consensus if you try it again after the article's unprotected. Don't say nobody warned you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take my chances that The Daily Dot violates wiki rules, since I'm quite certain that it does. It is merely my opinion, I suppose--but then again, it is my opinion that the sky is blue as well...Solntsa90 (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Depression Quest. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you don't want an edit war, I highly suggest you read this from WP:QUESTIONABLE:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities

The Daily Dot itself admits it is a mill of internet gossip. Solntsa90 (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the sources you added to the article on Rodina were useful - but please note that the same objection can be brought to them that you have to the Snyder piece. Whether a political party's position is right-wing or nationalist is not really a fact - it is an opinion. I think opinion pieces like the ones you cited (and also Snyder) are fine for that purpose.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really not understand why saying someone is a "convicted murderer" is different from saying that they were convicted of murder? Here is the first sentence of the article, the first boldface is what you added and the second boldface is language that was ALREADY in the article:

Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish-American factory superintendent and convicted murderer^[1][2]whose widely publicized and controversial murder trial and conviction in 1913, appeals and extrajudicial hanging in 1915 by a lynch mob planned and led by prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia, drew attention to questions of antisemitism in the United States.

Since the sentence already contains the phrase "murder trial and conviction", isn't your redundant accusation unnecessary and overkill? You added sources, but the sources do not use the phrase "convicted murderer -- instead they refer to Frank as someone who was convicted of murder.

You also deleted this without ANY EXPLANATION:

Jim Conley is now believed by some historians to be the real murderer. ^[3]

I had started a discussion of this but you did not participate. Why did you delete this information? Why are you trying to eliminate from the article lead well sourced material questioning Frank's guilt -- especially since such doubts reflect the historical consensus. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The references you're pushing have their own agenda, and would not pass Wikipedia's measures for scrutiny. With that said, Leo Frank is a convicted murderer as he was found guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan in a court of his peers.

Furthermore, there is hardly a consensus that 'Jim Conley was the real murderer'. That is utter rubbish, nothing more need to be said about it. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. The connotation of "state media" is that the state controls the publication of all media. It becomes a propaganda tool for the governing party. That has never been the case with the CBC, I find the term offensive. If you can find sources to support this change, I'll back down, but it's a crown corporation, not state media. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, per your deletions of the location "Israel" from articles like Nachlaot, Sha'arei Yerushalayim, and Mahane Yehuda Market, what international law are you citing that western Jerusalem is not in Israel? I'm under the impression that only areas over the Green Line, such as Ramot, Sanhedria, and Pisgat Ze'ev are not considered "Israel" by international law. Yoninah (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem is not considered as part of Israel (or Palestine) by any international authority, body of law, or group; It is completely an international city.

http://www.aljazeera.com/focus/2010/03/201032584536420174.html

Solntsa90 (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit of yours - [2] violates the 1RR restriction on all articles related to the Arab -Israeli conflict. Revert it or I will report you . All Rows4 (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I'm merely reverting your mass-vandalism of all articles related to Jerusalem, It doesn't violate the 1RR restriction; It's not my fault you refuse to read Wikipedia's arbitration on the status of Jerusalem (let alone international law):

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.

Solntsa90 (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't say I didn't warn ya... All Rows4 (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 below this notice: {{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.

Violation of the WP:1RR rule provided by the ARBPIA decision. The full report is at WP:AN3 (permanent link). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Solntsa90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The edits I made were good-faith reverts of vandalism made in bad faith in an attempt to influence wikipedia (all of the users' previous wikipedia edits relate to Israel/Palestine issues or the Holocaust) in a certain way despite arbitration and rules on the matter. I don't think I should be blocked, as I was merely reverting the vandalism on those pages relating to Jerusalem. Solntsa90 (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The imposition of restrictions such as WP:1RR is quite specifically to prevent edits such as those you have been making. Content disagreements are not vandalism and are quite subject to 1RR. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi - I saw your edit summary on a bunch of articles that "As per wiki arbitration (as well as international law), the opinion that Jerusalem is in Israel is on the fringe." I'm trying to find the arbcomm decision but I'm having trouble finding it. This is admittedly my first time really looking at arbcom so it may be just my lack of familiarity which is preventing me from finding it. Can you help me out by pointing me to the decision? I'd like to read it. Thanks --Bachrach44 (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC about an article that you have recently commented on is ongoing at: Talk: Dennis Hastert - Cwobeel (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The closing of an RFC in which you participated, is being challenged at WP:AN#RFC closure challenge - Cwobeel (talk)

In May of 1913, the Governor-elect John M. Slaton's lawfirm of 'Slaton and Phillips' (Highly respected Jewish-American Benjamin Z. Phillips) joined Luther Rosser's Lawfirm of 'Rosser and Brandon' (Morris Brandon), all together creating the law group of 'Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips' which represented Leo Frank during his murder trial (July 28 - August 21, 1913). Wondering if you knew of any secondary sources to support this claim and if you had any comments on how this could be incorporated into the main Leo Frank article and lead. I found supporting evidence for these lawfirms merging in Steve Oney's book, Mary Phagan Kean's book, and a scholarly paper written by Tom Watson Brown. Do you know of other sources? Would like your commentary and thoughts either pro or against an inclusion of this fact on the Leo Frank talk page. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cuckservative, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republicans. 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) 09:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: Just a note that I have created a new user box for WikiProject Deletion sorting members, located at {{WikiProject Deletion sorting user box}}. Feel free to include it on your user pages if you'd like. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jesse Royal (musician), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dub, Rasta and St James Parish. 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) 09:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, what was your rational for this edit [3]? As someone who has spent a considerable amount of time in the state of Utah, I've never heard SLC referred to as a holy city, even by Mormons. I understand that reading the article Holy city, SLC meets most of those criteria, but I've just never heard of it referred to as such. Dave (talk) 05:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Various books I've read over the years, but the only immediately accessible internet resource I can find to ascertain this claim is this BBC link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/mormon/history/pioneers_1.shtml

The Mormons saw Salt Lake City as their holy city: Brigham Young called it a "Kingdom of Heaven on Earth".

Fair enough, It's been two days since the addition and nobody has objected, and I'm the only one who asked about it, so it appears it will be a permanent addition to the article. Cheers and happy editing, Dave (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Leopoldo López shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Your edits are not improving the page. Its not about you adding in sourced content. Its that in that same edit you are removing sourced content. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not removing any sourced content. Have you read the sources? The "92% approval rating" came from The Harvard Alumni association in a personal letter of congratulations; One of the sources on his human rights record was written by an undergrad student at Penn State University. The sources are obviously extremely compromised, and you respond by removing this well-cited passage (from NPR, LA Times, and Foreign Policy Magazine, no doubt)

López played a leading role in the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt against President Hugo Chávez, where as mayor of Chacao, the wealthiest district in Caracas, he lead protests and conducted civil disorder to the level of which NPR states "culminated in an attempted coup against Chávez in 2002^[1], and even personally detained the Minister of Interior and Justice Ramón Rodríguez Chacín during the events of the failed coup attempt.^[2][3]

Solntsa90 (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the cite needed tags here? I'd say it's kind of important to have a source about Stop the War issues with Make Poverty History. Also it is a dead link. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you mention anyone at WP:AN even if it is done as "this user" with a link you have to leave a notice on the editor's talk page. It may seem like no big deal but it can, and will come to bite you in the bottom if you don't. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2015 (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, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, 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 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.

Johnuniq (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go m8 get ready to get labelled a GG supporter for trying to get the POV tag on man the ride never ends! Sethyre (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jesse Royal (musician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby in New Zealand. 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) 09:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Please be careful when you throw the words "slander" and "libel" around as you did here. Use of those words treads very close to the edge of a legal threat, which is violates the no legal threats policy. Violation of this policy can result in an immediate indefinite block. It is wise to avoid any ambiguity when it comes to legal language, generally by not using such terms that can be misinterpreted or make it clear that you are not the source of said potential legal action. Reading through your comment leads me to the conclusion that you would not be the source of any legal, but perhaps you may want to clarify this point. Blackmane (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my judgment as an uninvolved administrator, you have fallen below the expected standards for editor behavior on a page and talk page covered by discretionary sanctions (in this case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe). You were warned about this earlier by EdJohnston; the warning is still on this page. You are hereby topic banned for six months from the article RT (TV network) and its talk page. For appeals, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited an article on Eastern Europe in about as long as that arbitration was handed out. Certainly this would be a mistake, seeing as I haven't edited any article related to Russia or Eastern Europe extensively in almost 2 years. With that in sight, I think this is punishment is a little harsh (especially considering I don't always read what's on my talk page--I'm not the only editor who doesn't), especially in light of me attempting to find proper sources on RT, and even asking other admins to help aid the process. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, between the poor attempt at getting me banned from wiki outright for supposedly making a legal threat and now this, you basically fed right into their hands as to what they wanted you to do; From the RT News Talkpage:

:I won't say anything about the topic, since I am not familiar with it. I just want to say I am shocked by the hostile rhetoric (I think it's pretty much time you got a block here) and the clear attempts to WP: RAILROAD an editor who makes very reasonable requests for university studies or scientific sources. Examen Intelligentia (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't think this is an attempt at WP:RAILROAD, would you?

As a small aside: I don't think WP:RAILROAD is the link you want, since it goes to Wikipedia:Public transport. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Irving. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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. Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the page twice! For fuck sake, that is it, I'm truly done with Wikipedia, let it die for all I care, since it already is heading that way. Solntsa90 (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Israel-related animal conspiracy theories. 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:

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

You have a history of deleting substantial portions of articles related to Israel and Jews and will, again, be reported.The quote you have deleted was a professional explanation by an avian professional. His being an Israeli does not disqualify him for being a professional. The quote from Stormfront is relevant because its posting on a neo-Nazi website may have something to do with its origin. Zozoulia (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from stalking my edits and making revenge reverts like you did here [4]. This is not only disruptive it's also petty, immature and obnoxious.

And if you're thinking of trying to justify your harassment by invoking the David Irving article, you might want to check the history of that article and verify that I've edited that article quite a few times over the years. My first edits there were made before you even showed up on Wikipedia (assuming this is your first account).

I'd appreciate it if you self-reverted at Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "revenge edit" (whatever that may be--you take this too personally maybe), but a corrective one. Blogs and wordpresses, unless by the subject in question, are never to be sourced. You know this as well as I.

I will not revert the edit. Find a better source than a personal blog. Solntsa90 (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:UGC:

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.

That's why I removed your edit. Nothing to do with a 'personal attack' (you've accused me of being another user, insinuated Holocaust denial on my part, and have followed me around Wikipedia for a few months now, look in the mirror if you want 'personal attacks', just not standard to use blogspots and wordpresses for Wiki unless they can be verified by independent media, which I doubt any wordpress blog would be (or at least, the burden of proof is on you to prove that this isn't just any normal wordpress or blog). Solntsa90 (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should revert simply because your edit was a pure "revenge revert" done out of spite. You can always discuss the issue on the talk page and let others decide.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry, I was under the impression that the RT article was the only one where we've had interactions. Yet you claim that I "have followed (you) around Wikipedia for a few months now". Can you please specify other articles where we've had previous interactions? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Familiarise yourself with WP:UGC. Wordpresses and blogs, especially if unverified and written by nobodies, are not valid sources. This has nothing to do with revenge, and everything to do with poor sources. If you can find a better source, I won't revert it; However, if you keep putting in invalid sources, I will consistently revert it. Solntsa90 (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) You are being extremely disruptive because you are engaging in making revenge edits simply out of spite.

2) You have no idea of what you're talking about in regard to either the source or the policy. Maybe you would have a little bit more of an idea if you had actually bothered to look at the talk page. The fact that you didn't bother to do so, indicates that this was nothing BUT revenge reverting.

3) You are making a promise to edit war. This betrays a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, which together with the WP:STALK and the clear attempt to provoke an edit war means you're pretty much ripe for an extended block. You might not realize it, but I'm actually trying to do you a favor. I could have already reported you. I'm asking you instead to stop and change your behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And oh yeah, this isn't even to mention that your revert made shit out of a key section because you removed a key clause without which the text makes no sense. Hey, thanks for that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2016 (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 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 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.

--slakr^\ talk / 03:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So let's see, you've followed me to five different articles with the only purpose of either reverting me out of revenge, or trying to stir trouble up on talk. Here they are:

First article you've never edited before, never showed interest in the topic, have never had anything to do with before - yet here you are reverting me.

Second article where you show up to revert an old edit of mine even though you've never been nowhere near it before.

Third article where you pop up out of nowhere - having never edited it, shown interest, yadda, yadda, yadda - just to revert me.

Fourth article - same story. Pure revenge editing, though this time you didn't revert... probably because I only commented on talk rather than make edits.

Oop! Fifth article where you show up to stir up trouble, along with some disruptive edits to the article itself.

All this in like a single week. Care to explain this behavior which is a pretty clear cut case of WP:HOUNDING ? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And here, let me provide you with the wording from the policy:

"Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."

and of course:

"it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any instances of hounding (and even then, this is an extreme case of the pot calling the kettle--just like you called me a sockpuppet, despite you yourself being under investigation for sockpuppetry). We have a lot of articles that cross each other's interests (Eastern Europe, controversial history, etc.) , and I am not reverting edits, just contributing to talk discussions, which I'm allowed to do.

Most notably, you wouldn't be saying this if my edits agreed with you.

Now then, If you don't like it, go whinge to the proper authorities and pray one of them agrees with you. Meanwhile, I'll continue to edit as I please.  Solntsa90 (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S; There is no such thing as a "revenge edit" or WP:REVENGE. WP:REVENGE and WP:DLC do not apply here, and you don't seem to understand their meaning. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with them first? Solntsa90 (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Racialism. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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.

Pot, meet kettle. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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) 02:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. Except VVP page that I re-started editing for another reason, I only checked a page about the anti-war coalition because you posted about it on WP:AN. Yes, you could make a point that I follow edits by VM, but this should not be a problem as long as he does not object. Actually, following someone else edits is fine as long as it serves the purpose: a productive/positive collaboration and improvement of content, rather than making someone else life unbearable. My very best wishes (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for proving my point entirely. Solntsa90 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that your following of VM edits was an example of "a productive/positive collaboration and improvement of content, rather than making someone else life unbearable"? My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest already. I'm not about to engage you too. Solntsa90 (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I stalk your edits with a bad purpose, you suppose to tell about this to me and discuss. What you should not do is to accuse another contributor of something (like here) and be unable to support your accusations with further comments and diffs. My very best wishes (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my suggestion that you be banned from this article. You can respond at WP:AN3 if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to respond, if only Drmies didn't block me for 2 weeks without any warning or any evidence as to what I did wrong. Thank you! Solntsa90 (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For your obvious hounding of Volunteer Marek--you followed him to Lyndon LaRouche and helped continue an edit war which enabled a longtime abuser of Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Solntsa90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

blocking admin obviously has a previous rapport with the editor I supposedly harassed; editor has been accusing me of stalking, poor faith, has called me names, personal attacks, (i.e, "creep"), etc. etc.

I can provide links for any of these if someone wishes to further inquire into my ban. Regardless, I think it is completely unfair, misplaced, and an attempt to railroad me off wikipedia.

Also, what the hell is "enabling an abuser"? Solntsa90 (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The evidence of hounding looks solid to me. Also, attacking the blocking admin's motives and alleging clandestine activity is really not helping your cause. (Disclaimer: I recognize Volunteer Marek as a long-standing and well-respected contributor, but I don't recall any previous rapport.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I wasn't even given a warning, nor was I even told what exact offensive thing that I said that gave anyone erason to think I was attacking someone.

Finally, if it seems you know Volunteer Marek as a "well-respected contributor", perhaps my case with you was prejudiced from the beginning.

I'll try again later. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out, this ban happened in the middle of the night (suggesting that Drmies and the editor in question had some form of communication in a clandestine manner) without any warning or a notification of what I said that was wrong. I didn't get a single warning that I was "stalking" anyone, and I STILL don't think I ever "stalked" anyone.

I'd also like to see an example of this name-calling, harassment, etc. and I can easily provide counterexamples from the editor in question which may have provoked my utterly mild response. Solntsa90 (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add that Drmies has previously blocked me from the RT article, which is interesting, considering his position on Russia that he has: "Some of y'all don't like Putin an hell of a lot, some of y'all like him a lot more than you should like an old white guy". (also note, that the editor in question who complained about harassment called me a "creep" to begin with, and yet faced no sanctions for personal attacks). Solntsa90 (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies often meets with other Wikipedia editors at pre-determined locations late at night to hand off manila folders with lists of editors to be blocked; this is not against policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it's known that we meet late at night, we will most certainly have to change the pre-determined location schedule to early in the morning. On behalf of the cabal, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You miss my point completely: In regards to my review, If a user is seen by another as "a long, respected user" when not everyone (as obvious from the Putin article) shares that view, than it is obviously prejudiced from the beginning.

In regards to Drmies, I meant the fact that he previously banned me from one Russia-related article, only to ban me for my "conduct" on another--at least, I don't even know exactly what it is I did wrong!

Also, your tone is not appreciated. I'm taking this seriously, so should you. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just to clarify my disclaimer in my unblock review - my point was intended to convey that, even though I know of Volunteer Marek as a long-standing and well-respected contributor, I bore that in mind in my review and did my best to be objective and fair. I suppose the ideal would be for an admin who has never heard of either of you to review, but I very much doubt there are any of those as we're almost always going to be more familiar with one party in a dispute than the other, and we just have to do the best we can - at least, I think I have a reasonable record of being fair and even-handed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So in otherwords, my chances of an impartial, fair review where the other party isn't known as a "well-respected long time contributor" are nearly impossible, is that what you're saying? I can point out a number of people who don't think he's much of a contributor at all, but that is neither here nor there: I'm just curious, does this mean I can't get an unprejudiced review by admins who don't have previous rapport with Marek?

• Solntsa, I really don't want to be here and rub salt in it, but come on. Administrators can be fair, contrary to popular belief, and here you heard it from three different ones. You've been warned about harassment before, and in a section above Marek himself asked you not to do it. That you followed him to that article is just blatantly obvious, and that you were there to mess with him is obvious too. If you like, I'll tell him not to call people "creep" anymore--but then again, you've been following him around for quite a while, I think. As for the "enabling a longtime abuser" part--that also is obvious; feel free to look at User:Not the original Jack Bruce and following the links. They go back a decade, and no doubt they're still giggling, knowing that they messed up our system again, with you complaining here, having lent tacit support to their efforts to derail our project. You may not have known about that, and you may have caused that collateral damage without intending to, but you did--and you did it because you wanted to follow someone around and screw with them. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely banned from the topic of Vladimir Putin on all pages of Wikipedia including talk

You have been sanctioned per a complaint at WP:AN3

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at e-e#Final decision]] and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! I didn't even get a chance to speak up in my defence due to a coordinated 2-week ban, and now I have to sit here with the results of it, not even able to respond! Solntsa90 (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "uninvolved administrator"? No you're not! I've come into contact with you more times than I could count, none of the encounters pleasant. Solntsa90 (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Solntsa90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been called a creep, a stalker, a weirdo, etc. (on Drmie's own talkpage [for some peculiar reason, he took it right to Drmies and not to an arbitration board], nonetheless) by Volunteer Marek, and this never faced any arbitration from Drmies; he did however, give me a block for "stalking" without warning, despite being never being warned on the topic, despite me insisting that I was stalking no one; The above admins mocked me when I claimed that Drmies and Volunteer Marek have previous report (a claim I don't back down from), and told me that it wouldn't "get me out of unban faster", though my point is about saying what is accurate and correct, not merely what will get me "unbanned". Drmies also said I was previously "too interested in another Old White Guy" (in the same talk page conversation), regarding Putin, suggesting impartiality (I know, this "doesn't help my case", but it needs to be pointed out anyway). I have previously pointed out that me and Marek have overlapping interests, i.e, Eastern Europe, controversial politicians, political science, etc. I.e, If I was stalking him, I'd be editing every page he edits--including the big ones like Bangladesh and Economy of the United States--but frankly, this user doesn't interest me too much, and I wouldn't stalk him even if he wanted me to. (If anyone wants links to corroborate these claims, I'll be happy to provide) The review I received was by someone who admitted he had a partial opinion towards Volunteer Marek; I would like someone to review this page who has never had contact with either me nor Volunteer Marek, as that is the only way to ensure an impartial review of my little case here. I don't understand why Volunteer Marek is allowed to break 3RR, call me names with impunity, yet I'm the one whose been banned for "personal attacks", of which I was never even told what it is I said. No one took my appeal seriously yesterday, given the mocking from admins below. The one admin who did try and take my appeal seriously admitted that he previously knew of Volunteer Marek, and that he has a relatively high opinion of him. I would like an admin who has never come into contact with either of us before to review my case. Thank you. Solntsa90 (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC) P.S: Am I seriously not allowed to edit any article that Volunteer Marek has previously edited, lest this arbitrary ban happens again?[reply]

Decline reason:

It's clear that you followed Volunteer Marek to Lyndon LaRouche, which is hardly an Eastern Europe-related article. Your topic ban is also quite justified given the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality you've displayed in this area. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Link won't show up above, but Volunteer Marek (who requested my ban in the first place I'm sure) also has been following me around random pages and accusing me of "stalking" new user as well as himself. Solntsa90 (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ohnoitsjamie Just the other day, you were mocking me. Now you're going to review my ban? Solntsa90 (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to the next creative way that you come up with to "disqualify" unblock reviews. My previous comment was no sillier than your previous "middle-of-the-night" comment. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean literally in the middle of the night--I realise that people on this website are global--But come on, you started making jokes about my appeal. Should you really be reviewing it? Solntsa90 (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Solntsa90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

NOTE: I am readding this unblock request, because the previous admin who reviewed me was just mocking me and making fun of my request yesterday, which can be seen above. I have been called a creep, a stalker, a weirdo, etc. (on Drmie's own talkpage [for some peculiar reason, he took it right to Drmies and not to an arbitration board], nonetheless) by Volunteer Marek, and this never faced any arbitration from Drmies; he did however, give me a block for "stalking" without warning, despite being never being warned on the topic, despite me insisting that I was stalking no one; The above admins mocked me when I claimed that Drmies and Volunteer Marek have previous report (a claim I don't back down from), and told me that it wouldn't "get me out of unban faster", though my point is about saying what is accurate and correct, not merely what will get me "unbanned". Drmies also said I was previously "too interested in another Old White Guy" (in the same talk page conversation), regarding Putin, suggesting impartiality (I know, this "doesn't help my case", but it needs to be pointed out anyway). I have previously pointed out that me and Marek have overlapping interests, i.e, Eastern Europe, controversial politicians, political science, etc. I.e, If I was stalking him, I'd be editing every page he edits--including the big ones like Bangladesh and Economy of the United States--but frankly, this user doesn't interest me too much, and I wouldn't stalk him even if he wanted me to. (If anyone wants links to corroborate these claims, I'll be happy to provide) The review I received was by someone who admitted he had a partial opinion towards Volunteer Marek; I would like someone to review this page who has never had contact with either me nor Volunteer Marek, as that is the only way to ensure an impartial review of my little case here. I don't understand why Volunteer Marek is allowed to break 3RR, call me names with impunity, yet I'm the one whose been banned for "personal attacks", of which I was never even told what it is I said. No one took my appeal seriously yesterday, given the mocking from admins below. The one admin who did try and take my appeal seriously admitted that he previously knew of Volunteer Marek, and that he has a relatively high opinion of him. I would like an admin who has never come into contact with either of us before to review my case. Thank you. P.S: Am I seriously not allowed to edit any article that Volunteer Marek has previously edited, lest this arbitrary ban happens again? Solntsa90 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The same reasons given for declines of your previous unblock requests still apply, and in addition making absurd attacks on administrators who review your unblock requests does not encourage the view that you will from now on start editing in a constructive and collaborative spirit with other editors. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well, my unblock review above wasn't intended to be mocking, so I'm sorry if it sounded that way. And I certainly did take it seriously. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solntsa90, with all of the accusations you make against admins who interact with you, I doubt you will find a lot of sympathy. I imagine any admin who declines your unblock request will be accused of having some kind of bias.

You also take absolutely no responsibility for any misconduct at all! I recommend reading Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks carefully, taking its advice seriously and rewriting your unblock request because I think this one will be unsuccessful. Consider this serious advice, I'm not mocking you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per your email, I am unblocking you to edit the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case page ONLY. Any edits made to any other page other than that one and your own talk page before 10 March 2016 20:46:04 GMT will result in a minimum two week block, and perhaps longer. If you make an edit that is considered a personal attack by any uninvolved administrator this will result in a lengthy block, significantly longer than the 2 week block you were under. If you are not willing to accept these terms, I will be happy to reblock you. Courcelles (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not exactly certain how to do this correctly. any guide on the material? Solntsa90 (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the page that initially had me blocked over Vladimir Putin; does that fall under the scope of WP:RFARB? I'm not exactly sure how to do this, as I've never done this before. Please help!

Solntsa90 (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: I wonder whether this edit conforms to your instructions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomoskedasticity: It does not, in the slightest. Reblocked for 17 days for violation of crystal clear restriction. Courcelles (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously trying to instigate trouble, and have been following me around for some time. Get off my talk page, I didn't ask for your input, nor did anyone else. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Solntsa90, I'm following Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications here. The next step for you, if you wish to get the topic ban by EdJohnston removed, is to first ask Ed if he'll reconsider. If he doesn't, you can appeal either at WP:AE or WP:AN; the latter is probably the least bureaucratic way of appealing. You can also appeal directly to ArbCom at WP:ARCA--again, that's more paperwork than AN.

  You can email ArbCom, if you like, for an ARCA appeal, but given what has just happened (ArbCom is aware of this), it is very unlikely that you'll find anyone willing to unblock you again to file an appeal. Unlikely, not impossible. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 02:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is with Drmies. I suggest that you demand that he explain his reasoning for blocking you for hounding. Demand that he give diffs and that he give with those diffs explanations why they break Wikipedia rules or procedures. As an administrator he is required to do this, to explain his actions. However, unless you really have been doing some hounding as defined by the Wikiepdia definitions, Drmies will fail to do this (just as he failed to do in my case), which should open the door to raising the issue of Drmies's abuse of his admin powers regarding his non-standard view of what constitutes "hounding". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hounding is pretty much following someone around and harassing them. Like, say that Tiptoethrutheminefield had never, ever edited a certain page or talk page before, and then appeared on that page to mess with me--like, by saying I did this or that wrong, abused these or those powers, etc. Appearing out of the blue to mess with someone. That's what Solntsa did with Marek: following him to an article he'd never, ever edited before, to revert him. Seems pretty clear, and apparently my explanation and evidence were good enough for a few other admins, including Boing! said Zebedee and Ohnoitsjamie (who looked at it specifically), and I suppose EdJohnston and Liz also didn't see anything wrong here. So, Tiptoe, you are welcome to raise this anywhere you like; in the meantime, I cannot escape the feeling that a. you came here, for the very first time, specifically to try and tirritate me and b. you are not helping Solntsa's case at all. With friends like you... Drmies (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your recent edits, I would like to draw your attention to my remarks here. I've noted that so far you have not participated in the discussion on the talk page. If you believe that material related to the genocide should be included, make your case there. CT Cooper · talk 13:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump was put in a hidden box per the WP:Talk page guidelines. Please confine your use of article talk pages to discussion related to improving the article. - Brianhe (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please refer to the Lumberjanes talk page regarding your reverts to the page and why you should stop reverting Qiunzella back to the incorrect Quinzella. You should also understand that a thing such as how a name is spelled should not and normally does not require a citation. — Svetroid (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Solntsa90. 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]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article C&K Markets is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C&K Markets until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2016 (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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.

Neutrality^talk 23:43, 28 November 2016 (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.

Neutrality^talk 23:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please note that notions that the reliable sources describe as conspiracy or fringe theories must be clearly labeled as such, especially when they touch upon a living person, and especially when they state or imply that the living person committed a crime. This is required under the following policies and guidelines:

• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
• Wikipedia:Fringe theories ("Ideas that have been rejected, ... should be documented as such, using reliable sources.")
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view ("Conspiracy theories ... or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. ... The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. ... This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence")
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

These edits of yours don't appear to comport with the principles in these policies and guidelines:

• 13:55, November 27, 2016: removing word "debunked" from disambig page
• 17:40, November 28, 2016: making the same edit despite other editors' expressed objections to it
• 20:29, November 27, 2016: removing word "false" in text referring to absurd conspiracy theory accusing living persons of a crime, although the cited, reliable source clearly and directly says that claim is false)
• 14:00, November 27, 2016: inserting "claims to have" before the word "debunked the claims," thus casting unnecessary doubt upon the mainstream, published, reliable sources (see also WP:FALSEBALANCE)

Thanks, Neutrality^talk 23:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement related to violation [5] of the topic ban from all pages related to Vladimir Putin imposed by EdJohnston at [6]. Sagecandor (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In February 2016, you were indefinitely topic-banned from "the topic of Vladimir Putin on all pages of Wikipedia including talk." In January 2016, you were issued a six-month topic ban to Solntsa90 "from the article RT (TV network) and its talk page."

Two edits of yours today at fake news website (diff 1, diff 2) appear to be in violation of these active bans. I am consulting the two admins who imposed each of these two blocks about your recent edits to see if they agree with this assessment and am notifying you as a courtesy.

Regards --Neutrality^talk 21:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality:Reported, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Solntsa90. Sagecandor (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with Vladimir Putin. Nice try attempting to silence me, however. Solntsa90 (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. 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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• SoIntsa90, it is highly disruptive to make comments like this which are blatant violations of AGF, for instance. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

You've been blocked for failing to adhere to community standards in the area of WP:ARBEE. The full report is at Arbitration Enforcement. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Resilance
	I'm sorry for your experience on the Pizzagate Talk page. I understand your point. Sources like this have not been acceptable until now, I'm not sure why but there has been no official investigation. Only the media spouting off the "fake news" B.S. narrative. Childoftherion (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 08:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read from top of this page to bottom, and you will find the best and most poignant example of everything wrong with Wikipedia. Both from the perspective of the bias, agenda-oriented sock puppeting insecure Russian infiltrator (Solntsa90), and from that of the cliquish, unnecessarily sardonic administrators with blocking power.

Solntsa90 painted a massive target on his back, of which the powers-that-be were ONLY TOO HAPPY to pull the trigger. There's no Good Guy in this story; both Solntsa90 and the Good Ol' Boys club were acting like jerks.

Solntsa90 may have been an obnoxious rule breaker, but he was right about 1 thing; Wiki admins do indeed operate clandestinely and regularly allow favoritism and standing relationships color their administrative process. This is to be expected when you give power to self-righteous pseudo-intellectuals. The best part is reading their comments when they desperately try to pretend like this isn't so. Jersey John (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Guayakí (company) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guayakí (company) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Deli nk (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Guayakí corporate logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]