User talk:ClearBreeze

ClearBreeze, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi ClearBreeze! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Gestrid (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

July 2019

Hello, I'm Wikitigresito. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Berlin Palace, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! wikitigresito (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Hello, I'm DuncanHill. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Irina von Wiese, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! DuncanHill (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent contributions at Irvin Rockman appear to show that you are engaged in edit warring; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not override another editor's contributions. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle. 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 you 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. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not restore the controversial material until a discussion has taken place. If you continue in this manner, the matter will be brought to the attention of the administrators, who will take appropriate action. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: I have added a Talk page discussion, but believe it pointless: there is an important difference between a genuine logical dispute and a patently false one. Did you look at the reasons Zybax1! offered on the edit history page for their reverts? They are all total BS. The last one says it all: "Citations invalid". The citations in question being a National Crime Authority Report and the Canberra Times!!! And only added at length because of the previous suggestions of invalidity. Seriously: naturally one assumes good faith, but when in round-after-round the disputing editor is clearly not interested in mounting any serious argument, and merely engaging in false-excuse blocking nonsense, how much tolerance must there be? ClearBreeze (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. DuncanHill (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill There are no others. There is ONE other. And, as stated above, they are employing blatantly nonsense excuses to revert the edits. Go look at the history page and what they've typed to justify their reverts, and check it against the actual content. No one objects to a good faith editorial questioning. But how much pandering to blockage must there be, when the justications for reverts don't hold up for single second? (And indeed, are so downright risible, they are insulting to the hard work of the content provision?) In any case, the discussion is now taking place on the Talk page of the article. ClearBreeze (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So long as the discussion continues you should not be re-inserting your preferred wording. DuncanHill (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill @WikiDan61 You should also be aware that the editor Wikitigresito is stalking. After engaging me in a nutty erasure of the instigator of the Berlin Palace reconstruction, von Boddien, on its article page (because 'he doesn't like to see individuals credited'), which has now gone to Talk – but is ridiculous because it's one of those situations where personal ideology flies in the fact of indisputible written sourced fact, including the New York Times – he followed me to Von Weise, to further torment. ClearBreeze (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe another editor is stalking you, then raise the matter at WP:ANI. DuncanHill (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill @WikiDan61 When an editing matter is taken to Talk, but the person/s opposing the edit decline to participate in justifying their position (particularly when it is untenable in the face of authoratively cited fact), what then? There appears to be no WP policy statement with regard to dealing with obtructionalist editing in this respect. How much time time should be reasonably allowed to pass, after they have declined to debate, before their objection is dismissed? ClearBreeze (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ClearBreeze, you should really get over this issue regarding Berlin Palace and relax a bit. I am not wikistalking you against policy because I checked your history which showed related problems in your overall editing pattern. There seems to be a broader issue with BLP violations and your rather aggressive style of debating, as pointed out by other editors. wikitigresito (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. wikitigresito (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Maswimelleu (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maswimelleu You got showed up! Boo-hoo. That you fail to address the points made is its own statement. ClearBreeze (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Girls of Radcliff Hall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Wilson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Pascoe

Hi, I've rolled back your edits on Bruce Pascoe. Please gain consensus for these changes on the article's talk page, as there's already been a lot of discussion about how to handle these issues there. Cheers! SportingFlyer T·C 21:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: The Identity section had far too much repetition. There was no mention that his claim of aboriginality is NOT supported by the organisations representating the tribe he claims to be from. This obviously needs to be included for critical balance and simple truth, and is referenced from The Sydney Morning Herald. If you wish to dispute this, take it to Talk if you wish. ClearBreeze (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. 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. Nick-D (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D:"Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content" Support your defamatory claim. And it better be in detail, or an apology rendered.ClearBreeze (talk)

You know that's a standard template for the addition of unreferenced material in BLP areas, right? By your own admission at AN, you were adding stuff referenced to a "Quadrant" so it seems justified. Nil Einne (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:06, 20 January 2020 (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 without adequate explanation, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, you may be blocked from editing. You are not permitted to remove another editor's message. David Biddulph (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a proper procedure for reopening discussion, vis: WP:CLOSECHALLENGE But this reply is obviously pointless, as, unless you're unaware of it, you seem to think its rules only apply to some. @David Biddulph: — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClearBreeze (talk • contribs) 09:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours 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 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 ~~~~}}. Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've been repeatedly warned against making personal attacks on other editors, including Nil Einne, yet posted this attack on them. As you seem to be uncomfortable with Wikipedia's consensus based approach and definition of reliable sources and are editing with an agenda, I'd encourage you to reflect on whether Wikipedia is a place you really want to contribute to. If you continue this conduct you will likely be blocked for a lengthy or indefinite period. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D please remove talkpage rights and possibly extend block as you see fit. See page history for why. --moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 14:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Your block has also been extended to a week. If you continue like this, it will probably be made indefinite. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA, WP:RGW

If you do not cease posting personal attacks on other editors and rants about "cancel culture", you may be subject to administrative action for violating our policies and guidelines. I see that you have been warned (and indeed blocked) for this before, so you should not require more detailed explanation. --JBL (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Nick-D (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for an indefinite period as you are continuing to edit Wikipedia only with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and systematically failing to assume good faith. This has included a large number of edits pushing your personal views and attacking people who disagree with your views on Wikipedia articles on the grounds that they are editing with a political agenda:

Making multiple severe personal attacks on other editors alleging that they are editing purely with an agenda and are 'psychopathic' (some examples at User talk:Nick-D#For your consideration)
Starting a thread claiming that recent AfDs which are leading to a consensus to 'delete' are being started by a "cabal" and/or a "handful of persons with a grudge against elites": Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Notablity Not Inherited Giving Fuel To A Deletion Storm
Continuing your long-running disruptive editing in the Dark Emu (book) article, including attempting to edit war in a 'disputed' tag, continuing to advocate for material on the author cited to unreliable sources on the talk page (an obvious violation of WP:BLP and arguing for sources to be weighted and/or included based on your views of their political leanings.
Claiming that the decision to ban the Daily Mail as a source was made on ideological grounds [1] and that Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources are biased to left wing views [2].

As your editing is based around your political views and includes BLP violations and personal attacks, I've set the block duration to indefinite as I'm not convinced that your conduct will improve after a time-limited block expires. If you want to be unblocked, I'd suggest reviewing Wikipedia's core policies around civility and neutrality (Wikipedia:Five pillars is a good place to start) and ensure that any unblock requests are focused on demonstrating that you will edit in accordance with them in the future. Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you've posted real-world threats against another editor here, I've turned off your ability to edit this talk page. If you would like your block reviewed, the instructions for how to do so are in the template added when you also had your talk page access removed in January. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]