User talk:Factfindingmission

March 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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. 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 ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:05, 15 March 2018 (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 governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, 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.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello Factfindingmission. Welcome to the English version of Wikipedia
Thank you for your participation in this project. We hope that you will stay to contribute and that you will find the collaboration process enjoyable.
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that started in 2001 and is free for all to use and edit under certain guidelines and principles that all users should understand and adhere to. These principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information.
	The five pillars of Wikipedia. The fundamental principles of the project.	Help. How to get help.
	Tutorial. This tutorial is a basic guide to editing.	Your user pages and your sandbox. How to experiment and edit in your user space.
	Mentoring program. Request help in your first steps of editing.	How to start a page. Help on creating your first article.
	Things to avoid. How to avoid common errors and mistakes.	Style Guide. How to write in an acceptable style.
	Main policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines.	Frequently asked questions. Some common questions and their answers.
	Help Desk. Here you can ask other editors for assistance	Quick reference. A handy quick reference guide for editing Wiki.

72bikers (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning

If you do not start using talk pages to civilly discuss your changes with other editors I will topic ban you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: That's too rich. I added content about S&W's earnings and revenue. That requires a "civil discussion with other editors"? Glad to know that WP is now ruled by unreasonable individuals pushing their own agendas. As I've mentioned, this will make a good story. Factfindingmission (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If other editors don't agree with your change yes, it requires discussion without you explicitly calling them shills for S&W. That's as unacceptable as you being called a "paid propagandist for Never Again MSD". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN:Right - it would be as unacceptable as me asking: can we trust the judgement of individuals who are so antisocial and unoccupied that they can spend 6 or 7 hours editing Wikipedia pages each day?

Factfindingmission, you were warned about edit warring by @Primefac:. As soon as you returned to Wikipedia you restored material in question without a talk page discussion or consensus here [[1]]. Please self revert and move to the talk page discussion or I will report this to AN3 as a continuation of your warning here [[2]]. Springee (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears you returned to edit war here as well [[3]]. Again, would suggest a self revert and talk page discussion. Springee (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN:, please review this latest edit summary in context of your warning above [[4]]. Springee (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3RR discussion related to this account

Discussion here [[5]]

March 2018

Your recent editing history at Smith & Wesson 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 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 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.
It doesn't matter if you are "right" or not, take it to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned for three months from editing any page related to Smith & Wesson, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for disruptive editing and edit summaries on Smith & Wesson.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control#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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First and only warning: read WP:TBAN. Your postings are breaking your topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can appeal your topic ban by following the instructions in the box. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Factfindingmission, to be clear, your talk page comment here [[6]] was a violation of your topic ban. It also again contained accusations that against myself and/or another editor suggesting you don't understand at part of the reason @NeilN: implemented the block. Accusing editors of having a COI without is a violation of WP:AGF as well as one of the reasons for your topic ban. Please do not make the accusation again. Springee (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DS edits

The DS page should be left alone - As far as I'm aware admins can only edit it, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently 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. 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 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 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.

Factfindingmission, you added a paragraph to Kirstjen Nielsen about “recent reporting on Nielsen’s resignation and future employability”. I removed it because it was “sourced to Twitter and opinion pieces”. You reverted as “vandalism” and restored the paragraph. Another editor removed it, you restored it again and added an additional source. Still another editor removed it. That makes three editors who have removed it. At this point you are at the WP:3RR limit and are in danger of being blocked for edit warring if you do it again. It is clear you do NOT have consensus to include anything about this, and you must discuss it at the talk page and gain agreement before adding it again. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]