User talk:Fenetrejones

Collapsed for emphasis. El_C 18:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on my Talk page

I've responded there, but you can respond either here or there as you see fit. Long story short, what you were doing runs contrary to the way that AfDs are handled, so my undoing of your edits was entirely justified. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC) it is not even a vote just a discussion area-00:28,~ User:Fenetrejones 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely true, and I've never said otherwise. That said, it has rules just as the rest of Wikipedia does, and your behaviour was contrary to those. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Joel Mutchimunyi Mulumba

Hello Fenetrejones,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Joel Mutchimunyi Mulumba for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

SamHolt6 (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating hoaxes

Please do not create, maintain or restore hoaxes on Wikipedia. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia — and then to correct them if possible. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SamHolt6 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Hello, I'm Dreamy Jazz. I noticed that in this edit to Political status of Crimea, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. 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. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC) Sorry, I was just trying to remove unneeded images and accidentally got rid of some texttalk to me | my contributions 20:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Political status of Crimea. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your edits at Political status of Crimea, if Serbia voted against resolution condemning violations human right in Crimea it does not mean it supports the annexation. You have been reverted already three times, I will revert this again now, and if you continue without discussing at the talk page, I will seek measures which would restrict your participation in the project. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The UN Resolution is not just about human rights. It is also "Condemning the ongoing temporary occupation of part of the territory of Ukraine — the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (hereinafter “Crimea”) — by the Russian Federation, and reaffirming the non-recognition of its annexation". It also says "Recalling its resolution 68/262 of 27 March 2014 on the territorial integrity of Ukraine, in which it affirmed its commitment to the sovereignty," These two parts where the first parts of the resolution. which I found right here^[1](There is a link on the page that will take you to the document.)Fenetrejones (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still, this is original research. Please discuss at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2018 (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 recently shown interest in Eastern Europe. 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 any 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.

^ https://www.unwatch.org/2017-2018-unga-resolutions-condemning-countries-72nd-session/

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:UN Resolution regarding Territorial withdraw of foreign soldiers in Moldova.png

Thanks for uploading File:UN Resolution regarding Territorial withdraw of foreign soldiers in Moldova.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 15:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Un Crimea Vote 2017-2.png

Thanks for uploading File:Un Crimea Vote 2017-2.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 17:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 62 167.png

Thank you for uploading File:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 62 167.png. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Internal conflict in Myanmar (Israel role)

Hello, im Dottasriel2000 and how do you know that Israeli govt openly condemned Burmese actions ? where news and the article about it ? send me link plz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dottasriel2000 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay seem like im wrong. Sorry and thanks again for your editing :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dottasriel2000 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories of Ukraine (2014–present)‎

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories of Ukraine (2014–present)‎. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page, as you have been asked to.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you were warned about discretionary sanctions regarding Eastern European topics at 09:33, 10 September 2018. Don't blame other people if you get blocked for edit warring instead of using the talk page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Foreign relations of Myanmar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rohingya crisis (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) 09:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Fenetrejones. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis Reactions.png

Thanks for uploading File:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis Reactions.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 16:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3RR and edit warring

Please review WP:3RR, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:RS and discuss your edits on talk. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit, you have continued to WP:EDITWAR to remove maintenance tags, without discussing on talk to gain consensus.

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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Venezuelan presidential election

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2018 Venezuelan presidential election. 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. Thank you. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis 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.----ZiaLater (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis

I have asked you a question on article talk, just in case you didn't see it. Please respond, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies!~!

To Fenetrejones:

My apologies to you. I was not aware you were as new of an editor as you are. A Talk page stalker is a user to watches another user's talk page to see what they are up to. When I wrote (talk page stalker) using the {{talk page stalker}} template, I was not calling you a talk page stalker, but I was in fact referring to myself. It is generally custom for talk page stalkers to use that template to explain their presence on another user's talk page in a light-hearted manner. You have my deepest apologies for the confusion.

Kindest Regards, ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 20:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No ProblemFenetrejones (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Fenetrejones, I wanted to make sure you saw the closure of the AN3, here. Admin Ed Johnston closed it with the message:

Result: Warned. Fenetrejones may be blocked the next time they add a country to the list based on sources considered unreliable, such as TASS. According to the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, TASS is reliable for scarcely anything other than the position of the Russian government. If there are different opinions about the usability of a source, get agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you need further assistance, I suspect MJL is willing to answer any questions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That I am!! If you ever have a question, or get frustrated, or really anything; post to my talk page. I will try my best to help you out! :D ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 05:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	I am awarding you this barnstar for all the improvements you have made in editing Wikipedia since last we had contact. It is very much appreciated that you have worked to make some real progress with working with the other editors! :D ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 16:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Sea of Azov dispute

Hello, Fenetrejones. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sea of Azov dispute".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 08:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Xinjiang reactions.png

Thanks for uploading File:Xinjiang reactions.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Political status of Crimea

You added some references tags <ref name="un.org"/> (for example to Jordan) in September of last year. Unfortunately there is no reference with this name. Can you have a look and see if you can resolve this?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xinjiang re-education camps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congo (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) 08:18, 26 October 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) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Authoritarianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NLD.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Robert Mugabe, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Wilhelm Keitel, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT WARRING NOTICE

Your recent editing history 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 article's 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.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31h for edit-warring. 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 ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You had already so many warnings that a block is a logical next step.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Please do not attack other editors. 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.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Adding categories

Please note that there is a requirement that any category added to an article must have evidence supporting that category in the article. It is not sufficient to cite outside sources, you must have confirmation in the article. You've been adding cats without support. Please stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first two guys were already listed as fascists and Christians in their categories, so Christian fascists made sense to me. It says that Himmler was a former catholic so he was a former german Christian. I already had evidence from categories already there.Fenetrejones (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only Rosenberg and Jodl were not already supported by the article so I fixed that.Fenetrejones (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There were already categories stating that Franz von Papen ‎and Arthur Seyuss were fascist and Christian, so the category Christian fascists made sense. For Himmler, it already says that he was a former catholic, so former Christian makes sense too as he embraced paganism to some extent.Fenetrejones (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the rest though.Fenetrejones (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Nationalist parties in Laos

A tag has been placed on Category:Nationalist parties in Laos requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 deleted 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Albert Speer; 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. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Baldur von Schirach; 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. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categories must be definitive

At WP:CATDEF, we are told that categories must be "defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having."

At Hans Fritzsche, you added two categories saying he was Protestant. No sources describe him as Protestant, not even the one you cited. This campaign of yours is getting out of hand. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read that source it is a 20 page document about the whole incident. Henry Gerecke and the nazi prisoners. It is confirmed that received the Eucharist. It is not a campaign. This document is also reliable. Lutheranism is also a branch of protestantism. Fenetrejones (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-read the document. It is confirmed that he took communion and the eucharist in Lutheran faith. It is confirmed on page 16 of the 26 document. "Fritzche along with Speer and Von Schirach asked Gerecke for communion after they had studied the bible with him for several weeks." This source is from a book called: Mission to Nuremberg and that book has been promoted as accurate and credible by sources like Washington post and New york times.Fenetrejones (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, he received the Eucharist and asked for communion. I'm not disputing that. But being "Protestant" ISN'T HOW HE IS DESCRIBED IN SOURCES. Nobody says "Hans Fritzsche was a Protestant who was tried for Nazi crimes." Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Okay than it should be replaced with Christian rather protestant.Fenetrejones (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Binksternet (talk • contribs) 19:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Nationalists" and "Populism"

Hello @Fenetrejones: I see that you have been inserting language into several articles and assigning categories labeling subjects as "nationalists." Your edits have been reverted by many other WP users, and yet you are continuing on this crusade. Being a member of the Freedom Caucus does not mean they are a nationalist--nothing in that page says anything about nationalism. Please stop flagrantly assigning these categories to BLP articles without discussing the content in the talk page, please. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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.

@User:PerpetuityGrat Okay, I am currently in the midst of writing a response on your talk page.Fenetrejones (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why your references are citing content that contains no mention of "nationalist?" The articles you are referencing to support your claim that an individual is a nationalist isn't stated at all. For example, this edit includes a reference, but that referenced news article does not mention what you are alleging in your edit. This is just one example. Can you explain yourself please? PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you need to stop edit warring. Bacondrum 22:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bacondrum, I don't know why he is complaining about the populism category when he said fair enough. That category has been used for people long before I even became an editors, examples would be for the articles of Bernie and Trump. Now for the nationalist category, America First (policy) is a type of nationalism, just like Nazism, Juche, Ba'athism and some others. America First (policy) is literally based on the principles of nationalism and the article doesn't hide it. Every self identified Ba'athist is an Arab Nationalist for example, because that is what Ba'athism is. Likewise, every self identified America First Policy Republican is an American Nationalist because that is what America First Policy is. Fenetrejones (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC) And with the Matt Gaetz one, that article was actually already there before I added. I did not realize it at the time of the edit but if you scroll down on the page it is there.Fenetrejones (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC) Nationalism can be a broad term and there are many variants of it. Fenetrejones (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC) And with pertaining to types of Republicans. There are a handful of types. There are Libertarian types of republicans like Rand Paul and Thomas Massie. Rand Paul is included in the category Category:American libertarians, because he embraces libertarian ideology. There are those considered Neo-conservatives, which is particularly used on describing Bush administration members and people like John McCain. Fenetrejones (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Effort to Remove Liz Cheney from Chair of House Republican Conference for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Effort to Remove Liz Cheney from Chair of House Republican Conference, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effort to Remove Liz Cheney from Chair of House Republican Conference until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! Missvain (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Venezuelan nationalists has been nominated for deletion

Category:Venezuelan nationalists has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. NoonIcarus (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copy/paste content

I would like to request that you attempt to personalize the sections you are pasting in several articles, a la this edit. Duplicating sentences, word-for-word, is incredibly unencyclopedic. You are not a novice editor and you must know this. How is the content you added encyclopedic? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was a major vote that made the news. @User:PerpetuityGrat Fenetrejones (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is both lazy and sloppy editing, and not encyclopedic at all. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 06:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DACA

"which protects so-called Dreamers—immigrants who illegally moved to the U.S. when they were children" is a biased presentation of DACA. Children are brought to another country by adults, they don't "move" themselves. And "so-called" looks like a workaround of MOS:SCAREQUOTES. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of voting records to politicians articles.

Fenetrejones, I noticed that you did a mass add of content to articles about politicians. I'm concerned that these additions don't cite sources that establish weight for the additions. As an example, [2], I would agree that the sources you added are reliable for fact but they don't establish any WP:WEIGHT for inclusion. Effectively, we need a RS that establishes that it's significant to the topic of the politician that they voted some way for some specific bill. If no sources are saying why it's significant that Senator X voted for bill Y then we should leave it out of their BLP article. Most of the time how a politician voted on a particular bill is not due. I wanted to get your thoughts on my concern rather than just doing a mass revert of your 18 Jan edits. I understand it would be shocking to see a notice that says so many edits were reverted! Thanks, Springee (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a source here for example.^[1] as plenty of republicans have changed their stances. Fenetrejones (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is RollCall really a source that establishes weight for these additions? Looking a most of your recent edits it seems like there are a few bills of interest and then you have noted on various BLPs where a person voted against those bills. I don't think this would pass NPOV since you haven't shown it was notable that they voted for/against the bill. Do you have stronger sources that really focus on why such votes might pass the 10YEAR test? Springee (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fenetrejones, please hold off on more of these additions since WEIGHT is a concern. I think this should go to NPOVN to figure out how many of these edits should be kept. I don't think you have made a case that these specific bills have DUE weight on all these different BLPs. Springee (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a NPOVN discussion here [3]. Springee (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.rollcall.com/2016/05/20/really-30-republicans-switched-sides-on-lgbt-discrimination/

Secure America’s Borders First Act

All these edits you're doing are RECENT and UNDUE with primary sources. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2015 vote on Obama executive order

Hi. While looking at the page for David McKinley I noticed you added a statement about his LGBT rights policy, stating that In 2015, McKinley was one of 60 Republicans voting to uphold President Barack Obama’s 2014 executive order banning federal contractors from making hiring decisions that discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity. - as well as adding this to the pages of numerous other Republicans (Don Young, Mario Diaz-Balart, Elise Stefanik, Rodney Davis and Adam Kinzinger for the ones I found), but the reference for all of these was just copied text stating what was at the end of the statement - "upholding President Barack Obama’s 2014 executive order banning federal contractors from making hiring decisions that discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity", with no link or any indication of where you got this information. Did you have a source for this that you accidentally left out? If so, please send a link, it would make it much easier as I've had to replace the references with "citation needed" tags at risk of potentially deleting the statements. Thanks in advance. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 00:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

here it is. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/h326

––

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Trumpism into List of politicians affiliated with the America First Movement. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to fix it, hence the lack of categories, this is only the start version. sorry for the inconvenience. Fenetrejones (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Listing how politicians voted on a particular bill

Fenetrejones, I figured I owned you a talk page explanation since you are about to see a bunch of reverted edits :o ! As a general rule unless there is a notable association between a politician and a bill they voted on we don't list that they voted for/against any particular bill even if there is a RS article that says something like "These are the people who voted for/against X". Certainly if a politician worked to push/oppose a bill and their efforts were noted by RSs then we may include it. But when someone just voted for/against a bill we don't list it in their bio even if the bill itself is significant. I hope that explains why I just reverted a number of your edits and I'm sorry if the number of reverts was a bit of a shock. Springee (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Springee I reverted it for 2 of the articles where it was referenced and relevant in context. Andrevan@ 19:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrevan, thanks for the note. I've noted my opposition on those talk pages but I will let others decide if my arguments are persuasive enough to remove the content a second time. Springee (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added one, but only because it fit the area with Mary miller's vote on ukraine policy, but on the others, I agree. Fenetrejones (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the NPOVN discussion I think that violates OR to include it (see Masem's comment in this NPOVN discussion[7]). Basically you would need a RS to say why this any BLP subject's vote it has weight in the article. That said, I oppose it but I don't see it as a major issue. Springee (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Miller's page a bit more the Ukraine vote is hardly the worst thing on it. Lot's of similar "one of # of votes against X" entries and several examples of entries failing to use impartial language. Springee (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Libertarian Republican, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Perry.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about List of Republican politicians who support same sex marriage

Hello, Fenetrejones, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username ComplexRational, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, List of Republican politicians who support same sex marriage, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Republican politicians who support same sex marriage.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|ComplexRational}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

^Complex/_Rational 19:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Republican politicians who support same sex marriage for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Republican politicians who support same sex marriage, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Republican politicians who support same sex marriage until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Information for you

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

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 abortion. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Bishonen | tålk 12:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Reverted edits

I reverted your edits to Mark Kelly as they did not appear to be NPOV. Andre🚐 23:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, it was hard to word, but it was just notable headline Fenetrejones (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Cartwright

Your edit here [8] is a WP:COPYVIO - the text "an apparent misunderstanding over video shot for the Pennsylvania Democrat's bill about water contamination at Camp Lejeune," "Members of Congress are prohibited from using official resources to promote commercial endeavors.," is a direct copy-paste from the Axios link.[9] Andre🚐 02:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I was trying to revise it still then. didn't fix it just yet Fenetrejones (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that. genuine accident Fenetrejones (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fenetrejones, could you please read or re-read WP:COPYVIO and start reviewing your recent edits for additional copy-paste issues? If you're willing to do so, I'd appreciate it if you'd ping me after you've resolved/cleared your last 100 edits or so, as I'd like to double check your work. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Firefangledfeathers, I read it and yes I see what I did wrong, I checked my last 100 edits, most were very minor. This is the only one that was actually bad. Sorry about it. Fenetrejones (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would love for you to take some more time on a second pass through. Some tips:

It's fine to briefly quote the text of laws, but it needs to be clear that the text is quoted.
Pasting seven words from the title of a source is too much, and inserting the word "also" doesn't change that.

It would please me, greatly, to be able to say something tomorrow at ANI like "Fenetrejones definitely violated copyright in a few places, but they've demonstrated that they now understand the policy and have worked to fix past mistakes." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how do I do that. and yes, thank you. Fenetrejones (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"how do do that": if you mean "how do I make it clear that text is quoted" then you just need to surround the quoted text in quotation marks and make sure it's followed by a footnote citation to the quoted source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oh that I understand. I am just saying "I definitely violated copyright in a few places, but I've demonstrated that they now understand the policy and have worked to fix past mistakes as shown in recent edits." Fenetrejones (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha! For that, I need to see that you've marked quoted material properly and reworded pasted content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, I have been working on that Fenetrejones (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like you've spent any time on fixing up recent copyvio mistakes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

mainly because I checked all my old edits, and 99% of them were very small. but newer edits, I made sure of getting right. Fenetrejones (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andre🚐 02:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Tennessee. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I did not mean to, I was trying to undo people's edits Fenetrejones (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I realise that it might be difficult to recognise what's correct and what's wrong in that article history due to the constant back and forth. My apologies to you if I misunderstood your intentions. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Just wanted to let you know, FEC filings are not considered reliable/acceptable sources for declaration of candidacy. Although I’m sure all those incumbent representatives will end up running, plenty of candidates file with the FEC for races and end up not running. Hotpotato1234567890 (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Fenetrejones (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Angie Craig, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it's already on the wikipedia page that says that she is lutheran. Fenetrejones (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You added it after my revert of your edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and I added a source backing it up Fenetrejones (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Julie Emerson. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I saw a category already on that page when I made the edit. I didn't mean any vandalism. Fenetrejones (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Louie Gohmert, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. You have been cautioned by more than one editor about adding categories. Please learn how to do it correctly. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Fenetrejones (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Abraham (politician)

With this edit at Ralph Abraham (politician) you added the category "Protestants from Louisiana". Where is this supported in the article? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there was a category that said "Baptists from Louisiana" already there Fenetrejones (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the category supported by a source anywhere in the article? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just went off by the material that was already there and that category was already there. Sorry I did not notice that it was absent in the article. I will take your warning seriously, and be more attentive going forward. Fenetrejones (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the person is a Baptist, why are you adding that they are a Protestant? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cause Baptist is a protestant branch, and that category includes notable people Fenetrejones (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CATSPECIFIC: "Each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs." This means if you add the category "food from Chicago", you would not add the category "food from Illinois" , because that would not be the most specific category. The policy also says, "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." Would you mind fixing the hundreds of unnecessary or unverified categories you have added? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes I am on it. I am organizing the whole thing right now. Fenetrejones (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for the inconvenience Fenetrejones (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Frelinghuysen

With this edit you added the category "Episcopalians from New Jersey", to the BLP Rodney Frelinghuysen. What text in the article supports this? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the category "American Episcopilians" is already there Fenetrejones (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and now I added it for good. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodney_Frelinghuysen&oldid=1144069227 Fenetrejones (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a block? Fenetrejones (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about your categories has been reopened HERE -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Episcopalians from from Washington (state)

A tag has been placed on Category:Episcopalians from from Washington (state) indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New categories

When you add a new more precise category as you did here, please remove the broader category. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

perfect. will do Fenetrejones (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban from categorization imposed by the community

Hello. Per unanimous consensus in this ANI discussion, you have been topic banned (WP:TBAN) indefinitely from categorization. This restriction has been logged at WP:RESTRICT (diff). Please see WP:UNBAN for your appeal options. Thank you. El_C 09:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, please do not add or change or remove categories at all. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fenetrejones, in this edit at 21:00 on March 22 you added a category at John Fetterman, which is a breach of your topic ban. On top of that, the source you added in the previous edit does not support the statement that Fetterman is an atheist. The source instead says in a couple of different ways that "he doesn’t publicly identify with a religious tradition". Writing on that basis that he is an atheist is a BLP violation. I'm on my way to remove it. If you cannot tell the difference between not identifying publicly with a particular religion and being an atheist, in my opinion you should not be editing biographies of living persons at all. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to find fault with Yngvadottir's reasoning. Please be aware that you could be blocked right now for adding a category. Please understand that you may be blocked without further warning if you do so again. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block

To enforce edit restrictions placed by the community,

you have been blocked from editing for one week. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Reminder to administrators: Edit restrictions placed by the community are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or consensus at a community noticeboard (you may need to copy and paste their statement to a community noticeboard).

Fenetrejones, you cannot violate the above restriction with impunity. Please note that further violations will result in a much longer block, possibly of an indefinite duration. El_C 04:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: It would appear that Fenetrejones has continued to add categories to pages, in spite of his topic ban and recent one week block for violating the topic ban. See this, this, and this for a few recent examples. Marquardtika (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block 2

To enforce edit restrictions placed by the community,

you have been blocked from editing for one month. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Reminder to administrators: Edit restrictions placed by the community are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or consensus at a community noticeboard (you may need to copy and paste their statement to a community noticeboard).

Again, it is not feasible for you to violate the above restriction with impunity and without comment. Please reconsider. Next block will be 6 months to a year. El_C 18:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

is there any way to repeal it? I did very minimum and in an acceptable territory. Fenetrejones (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a way to appeal the WP:TBAN, mentioned in my opening above: WP:UNBAN. There is also a way to appeal the WP:BLOCK itself, mentioned in each block notice: {{unblock}}. There is no acceptable minimum territory, that is not a thing. El_C 21:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed for emphasis. El_C 18:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

NoonIcarus (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Roman Catholic Politicians has been nominated for deletion

Category:American Roman Catholic Politicians has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:Namiba 18:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fenetrejones. It has been blocked from editing for a period of 2023-05-04T18:57:07Z 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.

-- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that is not an account but if it is my ip, then I accept the block regardless. Fenetrejones (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith may the one month block be re-instated please? Fenetrejones (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Curbon7 I haven't been active as of late for real. But if that IP address is similar to mine, please block it, Thank you Fenetrejones (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's going on here, but sorry, I'm not blocking IPs on request. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

guy thinks an IP was mine. Also will my normal block be re-instated? Fenetrejones (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have some connection to ThisithewayGrogu. Until that is explained and the explanation is acceptable by an administrator, the block will not change and you are stuck with the standard offer. If you continue to ping people without providing said explanation, then your TPA may be revoked. -- Amanda (she/her) 23:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that one was me Fenetrejones (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already said, idk on the random IPS, but that account was my sock. Fenetrejones (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

@Christhegeek517, Mike Braun endorsed Trump.

https://twitter.com/IngrahamAngle/status/1649738828028997632?s=20

-- Fenetrejones (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try to get other editors to edit for you by proxy (WP:PROXYING) while you are blocked, as you are putting them potentially in trouble of violating WP:MEAT. Curbon7 (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

okay, My I please have a block of two months? maybe three months? Fenetrejones (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current block is indefinite, which means it will last until you convince someone (typically via an WP:unblock request) it's no longer needed. Valereee (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

where may I do that? Fenetrejones (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On your user talk page, i.e. this page. Curbon7 (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Candidates in the 2024 United States Senate elections

A tag has been placed on Category:Candidates in the 2024 United States Senate elections indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop socking

Hi Fenetrejones. Please stop sockpuppeting. You are only wasting your own time, as all the edits you make when sockpuppeting will be reverted. If you continue to sockpuppet, it would take a miracle for you to ever be unblocked on this account; you still have a chance, so cease now. Curbon7 (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about Special:Contributions/168.16.191.222 or another IP? Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and Floridamanfan. Curbon7 (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not active anymore. I may try to appeal a block much later, but I only use wikipedia now to view. Fenetrejones (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to confirm that the @Xy jns is not me but a friend from Ontario who I asked before typing this to restore any factual information that might have been undone. However I have not turned around on what I said about taking a hiatus for for now. That I was serious about. Fenetrejones (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about Corgi Stays? Compare this and this. I noticed the naming of sections as "Big Tech", similar sentence structure, and bare URL citations looked similar. Marquardtika (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having someone edit for you is WP:MEAT and it gets them blocked as well. Do not do this. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know who @Elli is, so I haven't done anything. Fenetrejones (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and I don't know who @User:Corgi Stays is. Fenetrejones (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@user:roysmith

@User:RoySmith I haven't been active for a while and I check my notifications and I am confused. those are not my accounts. I have never even seen those accounts until I opened up my page today. what is going on? Fenetrejones (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Banned

The user of this account, and their many sockpuppets, is hereby banned from English Wikipedia per WP:3X. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia admins, I apologize for my behavior It was very wrong. I shouldn't have done that. I know you don't think I'm genuine cause of the past and that is understandable, but let me explain. The past year or so, I was suffering major depression and loneliness. On top of that pressure from college was getting to me and I felt like I had to be a doctor for my parents even though I didn't want to be. At one point in November, I was even contemplating suicide. Doing good faith (in the sense I wasn't editing with intentions of vandalism) wikipedia edits was one thing that just let me get away from all the mental disaster going on. It felt good to write detailed articles about foreign relations and when hours of work was suddenly deleted by User:Girth Summit , I was mad. It also doesn't help that I suffer mild autism. I just started getting the much needed mental help that I needed and it started this past week, I have been slightly improving but I still have a ways to go. I am disappointed in my actions and I do genuinely apologize for being an inconvenience to the admins. I am not asking for my block to be lifted, I am asking for a block for about one to two years, I know I will be a mentally changed person by then.

Decline reason:

WP:SO is an option for you after six months of zero edits. A sincere good luck with your mental health help, I hope it proves valuable. Yamla (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I would also point to WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. Do note that the standard offer is not a guarantee that you will be unbanned; please prove you can contribute constructively at another Wikimedia project (e.g. Wiktionary, Commons, another language Wikipedia, etc.) and most importantly stop sockpuppeting, and your chance will improve. Curbon7 (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You got yourself a deal @User:Yamla. Take care!!Fenetrejones (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No editing means no editing - not just 'no creating any more accounts', but also no editing while logged out. You've been editing since you agreed to that 'deal' with Yamla. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see that sorry. and I agree with User:Yamla. I will be gone then. -- Fenetrejones (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

six months from today and let's see what happens after. Fenetrejones (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely disappointed with your most recent instance of sockpuppeting, in which you verbally abused the blocking admin. I thought we were at an understanding that you would stop sockpuppeting and contribute constructively elsewhere, and yet barely 3 months after you stated you would stop sockpuppeting you pulled this stunt. Curbon7 (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is NOT my alt. I stopped 3 months ago. Do you need me to send proof on twitter for that? I have been entirely inactive on wikipedia. Fenetrejones (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am MaryMillerstan [10] and I haven't been active here at all. Fenetrejones (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had a hunch that there were two different people caught up here, but the trouble became when you edited using the other person's account a few months ago (or vice versa, I don't remember which it was) which has muddled the various accounts together. Curbon7 (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what has ben going on as of late to be honest. I haven't been on this site for a while besides to read. I apologize for this inconvenience. I had no idea what was happening right now. I have honored my word. Fenetrejones (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign endorsements for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign endorsements is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign endorsements until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Cambalachero (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.unwatch.org/2017-2018-unga-resolutions-condemning-countries-72nd-session/

[2] ttps://www.rollcall.com/2016/05/20/really-30-republicans-switched-sides-on-lgbt-discrimination/

[1]

[1]