User talk:Canijustedit

Welcome!

Hello, Canijustedit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Short Hills, New Jersey. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Longhair\^talk 00:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of special editing restrictions for post-1932 American Politics

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 , 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.

Jbh ^Talk 18:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Hello, I'm BrendonTheWizard. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 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 Help Desk. Thanks. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. The edit you are proposing was rejected by consensus before you added it the first time for being a defamatory and provocative label. Ignoring consensus, reinstating unconstructive edits, and not using the talk page is not helpful. You also replicated this edit to Bernie Sanders, which has been undone. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions for American politics

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. Bishonen | talk 03:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, Canijustedit. I don't mean to pester you, but Jbh's alert above unfortunately lacked essential details, so I'm giving you the complete version. (Did you use "AP2", Jbh? It needs to be "ap".) Bishonen | talk 03:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Yes. I used AP2. Thank you for fixing it. I'll remember "ap" for next time. Do I need to do anything to trip the 'awareness' filter for me under the proper ds/alert? Jbh ^Talk 03:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uh.. you don't need to do anything else on this page. The awareness filter is automatic and very in-your-face, you can't miss it. Half the time, I can't remember the codes myself; there's a list of them here, if you scroll down a bit. Bishonen | talk 04:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I mean the edit filter that is tripped when I issue an alert and records my awareness of the sanctions due to issuing an alert. I'll just do a self-notification with "ap" instead of "AP2" and it will pick up that I gave an "ap" alert. I don't plan on getting hauled off to AE but fair is fair.

Jbh ^Talk 04:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could just post something like the notice at the top of Atsme's talkpage. Sorry to be using your page for this discussion, Canijustedit. Bishonen | talk 04:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Sorry, I'm kind of new to Wikipedia. So what is going on? And please keep in mind the guidelines WP:WP DNB

Discretionary sanctions have some arcane rules about who can be sanctioned under them; only editors who have received a notice, like you did; and editors who have issued a notice, like I did. There is also a requirement that editors not have a notice about the same sanctions put on their talk page if they have received one in the past year. There is an automatic process, called an edit filter, which keeps track of these things, particularly for editors who issue notices since the fact they did so is not recorded on their talk page.

When I gave you the notice about American Politics I used the wrong version of the template – that is what all of the "AP2" and "ap" stuff is about. What I was asking Bish about is if I needed to do anything so the system would properly record that I was now 'officially aware' since I had used the wrong version of the American Politics template. To make sure the edit filter recorded me issuing one, and to avoid skating by on a technicality if someone wanted to sanction me, I decided to just issue an "ap" notice to myself to make sure the filter caught it.

Not sure if that helped or just ended up being more confusing. Jbh ^Talk 05:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please just ignore the technical discussion between Jbh and me, Canijustedit, and sorry about that. The notice in the yellow box means that there have been many problems associated with American political pages, including political biographies such as Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor), and therefore the Arbitration committee has authorized administrators to use their own discretion (that's why it's called "discretionary sanctions") in sanctioning editors of these articles who edit unhelpfully. For instance, an administrator can give an editor a topic ban from some or all American political pages. That would mean the editor wouldn't be allowed to edit American political articles or any associated pages, though they would still be allowed to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Of course they would be warned first. By giving you the alert, I basically wanted you to be aware that these articles are controversial, and that you need to study our policies and listen to advice from experienced editors. I'm sorry the wording of the alert is so bureaucratic, but I do need to post it exactly as-is, in order for it to "count" as an alert. Compare [1]. Bishonen | talk 09:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Canijustedit! You created a thread called Finding Consensus on an Article at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]