User talk:Browniesandicecreamcake

April 2020

Hello, I'm Wow. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to 2008 United States presidential election have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. This is the second time I had to rollback your edits. Instead of reinstating your preferred portraits, seek consensus first, especially since it's the infobox, per WP:BRD. Wow (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Wow (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing the infobox photos of politicians, as you did at Hillary Clinton, without first discussing it on the talk page, You will find these changes reverted, so all it does is create work for other people. This is disruptive. As you are a new editor, please learn how things are done here at Wikipedia. If you have questions, many friendly editors are available to help you. Senator2029 “Talk” 21:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Browniesandicecreamcake, I see you have ran into issues with your editing. I do highly suggest the Wikipedia Adventure which is an interactive tutorial that teaches the basics of Wikipedia's policies and editing. You can also ask questions at the Teahouse. In general, follow any blue links in messages editors have left, which leads to pages you need to read and follow that guidance. For example, an editor left you a message about using edit summaries, however, you have failed to do so. Continuing to ignore guidance will ultimately lead to your account being blocked. S0091 (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undone Hi, I’m Tartan357. Your recent edit to Template:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries in which you changed candidate photos in the infobox to official portraits was disruptive and has been reverted by another editor. The candidate photos for the infobox adhere to certain quality and aesthetic standards discussed in detail on the main article’s talk page. The current photos were taken by the same photographer during campaigning and all share a similar aesthetic. I see from previous comments on your talk page that you’ve repeatedly engaged in this specific type of disruptive editing in other U.S. presidential election infoboxes despite warnings. Please remember that major changes on Wikipedia should be made through consensus, and that existing consensus should not be violated. You should also provide an edit summary to explain your reasoning whenever you edit, especially when making such major changes to high-visibility articles. Thanks. Tartan357 (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tartan357 here. Since I left you a warning yesterday (April 29th), you’ve received two new warnings from users S0091 and Senator2029 for the same issue. You were also warned by Wow before I warned you. You haven’t responded to any of these warnings. At this point, it seems likely to me that you are using your account primarily for vandalism. I could be (and hope I am) wrong, and I’d be happy to discuss this with you here. You have an opportunity to explain your point of view. Simply write a message below this one and I’ll respond. Tartan357 (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tartan357:, I agree they certainly do need to respond to these messages. They may be a good faith editor but they do need to take heed to the messages here and if they fail to do so, then that is telling and will need to be dealt with, unfortunately. My hope is they will take on the guidance given and will take the time understand how to constructively edit here. S0091 (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091: They do seem like a a good faith editor to me, too, since their edits are not wrong but are simply unexplained and against consensus, mostly on formatting. Maybe they don’t know about their talk page - I think alerts should appear when people leave messages, though. I hope I didn’t go too far with this latest warning. I definitely don’t want to bite any newcomers, but I’m not sure what else we can do. --Tartan357 (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tartan357, I was never trying to vandalize any pages. I was just trying to replace the portraits of the most recent occupation at the time. I truly apologize for any wrongdoing.

@Tartan357: Hey! I just think Hillary Clinton’s Secretary of State portrait would best fit on the top of her page as well as the 2016 general presidential election. I also think Barack Obama’s and Joe Biden’s 2005 Senate portraits would fit best on all 2008 presidential election pages. I haven’t edited but is all of the above okay?

@Browniesandicecreamcake: I’m so glad you asked! In all these cases, there is a talk page consensus on the images used. Generally, official portraits are preferred on a politician’s page, while images from around the time of the campaign are preferred on election pages. In the case of Hillary in 2016, a consensus was reached in using that image of her during the campaign. In the case of Obama and Biden in 2008, a consensus was reached that those were the best photos that reflected how they looked at the time of the campaign. It was deemed acceptable under the circumstances to use photos from just after the election, as was the case with Trump on the 2016 page (in Trump’s case, it was practically impossible to find a good picture of him smiling from the campaign). There’s probably a case to be made for changing the Obama and Biden photos to photos from the campaign, but you’d have to get a new consensus on the talk page because there is an existing consensus. You’d want to familiarize yourself with the past discussions, which often span multiple sections in talk page archives, and then start a new section on the current talk page making your case for the changes, and discuss it with other editors. In the case of a major change like this to a page so important, you’d want to make your talk page section an RfC (Request for Comment) one, which essentially calls other editors interested in the topic into the discussion. You’d have your work cut out for you, though. If you want to do that, follow the instructions on the RfC page I just linked to. You’d likely want to use the {{Rfc|pol}} tag.

You’re actually right about Hillary’s image in my opinion. The image was changed without consensus (the last discussion was here, and the use of the Secretary of State portrait was confirmed. It took me a while of combing through the archives to find that; they can be quite long. I made the change for you with a detailed explanation linking to the appropriate discussions. You can make these changes yourself, but in the case of such high-visibility topics, you have to cite and/or participate in discussions, and explain how you’re applying consensus. You’ll catch on quickly, I’m sure.

Lastly, don’t forget to sign your posts on talk pages by writing ~~~~ after your message (you didn’t on your above post).

It looks like there’s still controversy over Hillary’s image. I’m trying to work it out with another editor. — Tartan357 (Talk) 02:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Browniesandicecreamcake: Okay, so it looks like the new consensus is that she was much more politically prominent as a presidential nominee, justifying an exception to the convention. I don’t agree, but it makes enough sense for a consensus, I think. — Tartan357 (Talk) 03:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Browniesandicecreamcake: I noticed you’ve been blocked for changing the picture again. You asked me about whether it was okay to change and I agreed with you and made the change myself. It was undone because I missed something, which I discussed with another editor, as I said above. You went in and changed it again instead of reading what I wrote above. I’m trying to help you out, but disruption - regardless of intent - will not be tolerated, and you will be blocked indefinitely if this continues. You’re editing high-profile pages and not leaving edit summaries or checking your talk page. I strongly suggest editing less-controversial articles to get started; you’ll have more chances to make mistakes freely and learn that way. — Tartan357 (Talk) 07:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tartan357: I understand my mistake and I signed and wrote in the edit descriptions and edited properly. I sincerely apologize for any unintentional disruptions. I really would appreciate additional support. Once again I apologize.

@Browniesandicecreamcake: You actually didn’t provide adequate edit summaries, and reverted other editors’ reverts of your edits without explanation. I’ve already explained how the consensus process works, and have no additional guidance to provide. It seems to me that you would be better off editing less-controversial articles until you learn how to properly explain your edits and participate in talk page discussions. I wish you the best of luck. — Tartan357 (Talk) 02:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

@Browniesandicecreamcake: No worries! It’s my pleasure to welcome you to Wikipedia. This happens to most newcomers (including myself), and I and the other editors commenting on your page could tell that you were acting in good faith because your edits weren’t wrong. The warning sings you saw were just used to get your attention; they don’t add you to any sort of list, and can be placed by anyone, even someone without an account. Now that you’ve explained yourself, you’re in the clear and won’t simply be blocked the next time someone accuses you of vandalism. Blocking is rare and used only when someone makes many repeated disruptive edits in a row and shows no sign of stopping despite warnings. This page is your talk page, which other editors use to communicate with you. You can respond to them, but don’t have to (I’d recommend it, though, especially when editors have placed warnings). While pages don’t belong to anyone on Wikipedia, including user and user talk pages, you are free to remove any messages from your talk page whenever you see fit, including warnings. Doing so is seen as a sign that you’ve read and understood the messages. I’ve taken the liberty of removing them for you. Your user page is different from your talk page, and is an optional way for you to tell editors what you’re into. You can put just about anything there as long as it isn’t extremely likely to anger most people. Here’s a link to mine. When you’re logged in, these pages can be accessed by clicking on your name at the top of the page, and the “talk” button the right of it. You should get a notification (on the bell next to your username at the top of the page) when someone leaves a message on your talk page. Major changes to an article are typically discussed on that article’s talk page, which is where a “consensus” is reached through discussion. Still, violating a consensus because you didn’t know about it is no problem at all. Someone will politely let you know if they see a problem, so don’t be afraid to make edits. The pages you edited are prominent, and their content is debated in great detail. For many other pages, change is less controversial and talk pages are mostly empty. It varies. Other editors will suggest the sandbox, tutorials, or reading policies to get started as an editor. In my opinion, that’s a boring way to get started, and I doubt many people actually do it. I certainly didn’t. You can and should learn by doing. Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines, but they aren’t laws. People shouldn’t violate them intentionally, but it’s not expected that people understand them all from the start. There are also times when they should be ignored. Trust me, experienced editors won’t be angered if you violate policies at first. Here are some of my favorite policies that I think represent the spirit of Wikipedia quite well:

Mistakes made with good intentions - especially by newcomers - won’t bother experienced users. In fact, what bothers us much more is when other experienced users scare off well-meaning and learning newcomers by shouting them down with policies. There are some policies for the more experienced that reflect that:

Don’t be a jerk
Please do not bite the newcomers
Please bite the newbies - a joke, we like to have fun here :)

I’ll leave you with just two simple instructions:

Give edit summaries for most edits (you don’t need to if it’s something trivial like fixing a typo)
Sign your posts on talk pages such as this one so we can see who said what and when (simply write ~~~~ after your message and your name and the time will be added automatically after you submit your edit; there’s a button for this above the edit summary field, too)

Once again, be bold, learn by doing, make mistakes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Tartan357 (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. BD2412 T 04:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits to Template:2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries in which you changed both candidates’ photos against consensus, without edit summaries. I’ve tried to be helpful and give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have ignored numerous warnings and are repeatedly changing political photos without explanation, causing disruption to many high-visibility pages. This type of incessant disruption won’t be tolerated. You will likely be blocked indefinitely if you resume your vandalism once your temporary block is lifted. — Tartan357 (Talk) 12:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tartan357 You have been helpful. I did not mean to cause any disruptive editing. I will try to not edit at high-visibility pages going forward. I apologize.

It's not a question of the pages being high-visibility pages. Do not edit war. If your edits are reverted, do not revert back. Discuss and gain consensus. BD2412 T 01:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. S0091 (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to The X Factor (British series 8) while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. S0091 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Browniesandicecreamcake! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Cheryl (singer) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia — it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 04:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at 2008 United States presidential election, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You've been warned many times about changing candidate photos without discussing and gaining a consensus. Since you read and acklowedged the numerous warnings above, and have continued to make these changes regardless, you're now blatantly vandalizing Wikipedia. First, you changed Obama's picture without logging in. When you were reverted, you logged in, and reverted the revert as "minor" which it wasn't. You've been warned about your use of the minor edit feature and editing under multiple names, as well, so it seems likely that you're using those as a means of hiding your vandalism. This will not work, and you will be blocked if you do it again. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 01:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. BD2412 T 01:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

If you restore unsourced personal information in violation of WP:BLP (and more specifically WP:DOB and WP:BLPNAME) you will be reblocked. I'm also including a descretionary sanctions notification regarding biographies if living persons below so you are completely aware of the special requirements for sourcing in these articles.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The X Factor (Australian season 8). — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 07:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion regarding changing infobox photos without consensus

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 00:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for logged-out edits to continue adding unsourced content to BLPs despite multiple warnings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you continue to evade your block through logged-out edits, your block has been extended to indefinite.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]