User talk:DrawingLol

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, DrawingLol. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! BeywheelzLetItRip ^{(What is it?)} 22:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Foolish of you to cut and paste

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Rise Above Movement a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Rise Above Movement. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware on how to properly move it. DrawingLol (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alt-right template

Hello! Please use discretion and restraint when adding the {{alt-right}} to articles, especially biographies of living people. Per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, navigation boxes should contain the article they are placed in, allowing navigation of a well-defined group of articles. Adding the template to any article can create the false perception that someone is firmly associated with the alt-right, and subjects should only be in the navbox if widely associated with the alt-right in reliable sources: thematic overlap or brief interaction with the alt-right are not sufficient for inclusion. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I removed the additions that weren't already struck by other editors, pending the outcome of the discussion at Template_talk:Alt-right_footer#Criteria.2C_again. You should probably engage in that discussion. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Counter-Currents Publishing

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Counter-Currents Publishing requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. The king of the sun (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't see a whole lot of material about them, other than, e.g., "In the United States, Greg Johnson's online outlet for the North American New Right, Counter-Currents Publishing, has made heavy use of Pound's writings since 2010" (from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137396211_2), a mention at https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2014/financing-hate ("In the case of the white nationalist book-selling site Counter-Currents Publishing, the site’s operators reported in December that it had earned nearly $20,000 through its referrals to Amazon."), etc. Smooth alligator (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

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.

Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an automated message, or are you trying to say something more? Confused. DrawingLol (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious too, so I looked it up. It's not really a warning but more of an alert, so that if something happens, you can't say later that you didn't know the sanctions were in place. Smooth alligator (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it can be vague and confusing, but the template doc says it must be posted as-is, so that's what I did. And yes it serves as a notice so that for example if you violate WP:1RR sanctions could be applied immediately. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Alt-right footer. 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:

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; 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. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Identitarian Movement

Template:Identitarian Movement has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Edaham (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard editing these alt-right-related articles and templates, huh?

It's such a politicized topic, and so touchy and highly scrutinized, that it can be hard to make headway. It takes a lot of patience. What makes it worse is that people say that the rules will be more strictly enforced with regard to these topics, yet the rules can often be pretty vague because editors are supposed to "use common sense" (aka ignore all rules). Dealing with templates is the worst of all because there's not a routine practice of citing sources like there is with articles, yet people are apparently expected to follow the same WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NPOV rules, so now we're coming up with these ad hoc processes for adjudicating that. It's pretty chaotic. Smooth alligator (talk) 02:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our policies, which you characterize as vague are designed so as to open discussion to any and all editors, some of whom may well have interests which conflict with wikipedia's mission. This is natural and part of the editorial process. These means of generating discussion to arrive at consensus on article content are part of the foundation on which our project is built. None of our policies apply more to one article than another and reminders placed on articles about their contentious nature, or discretionary editing practices are designed to aid discussion, maintain civility and caution against adding content which may infringe policy, not to alter the emphasis of any particular policy related to a specific article. Ignore all rules is not equivalent to saying "don't abide or try to abide by policy". To ignore something without being at fault, means first very carefully understanding what it is you are ignoring. I suggest you make an effort to take in this info and read our guidelines before offering any more advice to editors. Edaham (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't really offering advice as much as, I guess, empathy (i.e. an "If you're getting frustrated, I feel ya man; it can be rough out there").

When I say Wikipedia rules can be vague, I mean, for example, how Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources is worded: "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense". At the end of the day, if other editors decide that an editor isn't exercising good editorial judgment and common sense, they can decide there's a competency issue; but this is subjective. If it were possible to objectively determine what constitutes "good editorial judgment and common sense" it probably would've been written down more precisely in the rules, but it isn't possible, and so therefore determining competency also is a matter of "judgment and common sense".

It takes patience to learn what all the unwritten rules are and develop this kind of "common sense" (since common sense is derived from hanging around and absorbing a community's culture and having everyday experiences from which one can eventually figure out the way to do stuff that will get the desired results). Wikipedia values and norms are incredibly complex and can even vary from one part of Wikipedia to another, so it's fairly normal for anyone who edits boldly to make what others regard as a mistake, or run into trouble, etc.

The processes aren't perfect, and a lot of times editors are making up the rules as they go along, plus those passing judgments on other editors aren't perfect either, but with patience, it's possible to be successful at improving the encyclopedia. So basically I just came her in the spirit of, "I like that you come here with such high energy; hang in there, keep observing and seeing how stuff works, and figure out ways to work through or around the obstacles to improving the encyclopedia, and you can make it." Smooth alligator (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion on renaming the Richard B. Spencer article

I figured out might have some helpful insight into this, since you seem familiar with the alt-right. Judging by what he said in his famous "hail victory" speech, he does almost seem white supremacist, but some say it would be better to call him white nationalist. Smooth alligator (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Spencer claims to be a member of the identitarian movement and an ethnopluralist, not a white supremacist. Whether he is simply saying that to cover up his true beliefs, or not, I don't know. However, he is definitely not allergic to associate with some pretty unsavory people... (See the people headlining the Unite the Right rally for a good example) I'm going to stay neutral in this, as I simply don't know his heart, but it's pretty suspect to me. Spencer being widely called that shouldn't be whitewashed in the article however, as a lot of the opposing side is saying. Thanks for asking. DrawingLol (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Brittany Pettibone

The article Brittany Pettibone has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Brittany Pettibone

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Brittany Pettibone, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Grayfell (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Southern nationalism sidebar

Template:Southern nationalism sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]