User talk:Lordbuckinghambadger

Welcome!

Hello, Lordbuckinghambadger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Best practices for editors with close associations
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Slywriter (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your insertion of only negative content on political biographies of candidates running in elections this year gives the impression you may have a vested interest in the outcome of some or all of the races. Wikipedia is not forWP:ADVOCACY of a particular candidate especially though insertion of negative material that may not be WP:DUE. If you are being WP:PAID by a campaign then stricter disclosures are required by the Terms of Services.

Being verifiable does not guarantee inclusion of content. It must also be due and be sensitive to biography policies. Controversial edits are best discussed on the talk page, especially when they have already been reverted. Insisting without discussion will just lead to a ban for being disruptive, regardless of the merits of your edits.Slywriter (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm becoming aware of the practices. That's also not true of what I'm doing, I've entered what are clearly positive contributions into the content for Tony Evers. I can say with complete honesty that I'm not affiliated with any poltical campaign but am an independent follower of politics in Wisconsin. That is what I'm editing for primarily as of now. All of my content is well-sourced and relevant to the candidate at-hand, not intended to be negative. As I am new I do appreciate some of the guidance on staying neutral as possible though. Lordbuckinghambadger (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Hello, I'm Reywas92. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Sarah Godlewski have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Reywas92^Talk 15:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Sarah Godlewski 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Reywas92^Talk 15:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Alex Lasry 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.—Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanction Alerts

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.

Slywriter (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2022 (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 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.

Slywriter (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, find the talk pages or you will be blocked from editing. Edit Warring is never a winning strategy.

Second, Wikipedia does not care about an upcoming election and your edit summaries are quickly showing not here to build an encyclopedia and instead hope to influence an election. So again discuss on talk page or you will be blocked.Slywriter (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care to "influence an election", I take umbrage with that phrasing. What I do care about is to inform people in a broken electoral system about crooked candidates who flood our nation with money and propaganda and whose corruption is overlooked constantly. I don't care to re-edit her page but I stand by my edits as factual, well-sourced, and relevant. Thank you though. Lordbuckinghambadger (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take all the umbrage you want, but you will accomplish nothing here unless you follow policy and discuss on the talk page edits that are contested. And if you won't be editing the article any longer because a second account has curiously turned up to make the same edits know that having someone else edit or using multiple accounts are a very quick way to be blocked.Slywriter (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'm taking even more umbrage. Thanks for the wisdom! I gotchu, champ. Lordbuckinghambadger (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you didn't like a punk and delete well-sourced, revelant information while pointing to a wikipedia standard you can't specifically cite from. Thanks! Lordbuckinghambadger (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have received the necessary discretionary sanctions notifications and yet you are persisting in adding contentious material about the father to the son's biography. Please consider this a formal warning. You will be sanctioned if you continue with these WP:BLP policy violations. Desist. I hope that I have been clear, because my intentions are clear. Cullen328 (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't violate anything! What did I violate? How was that edit, which is completely relevant to his status as a poltical candidate, not acceptable in the personal life section? Please let me know. It's not contenious either, it's factual. I could show you numerous pages where such things fly. It's ok to admit you're wrong. I really don't care about your threats or bans, I just think slywriter is being a punk at this point and gets a rush off of being an editor on here. You seemingly do too. Lordbuckinghambadger (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for edit warring, disruptive editing, and WP:NOTHERE behavior, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

EvergreenFir (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

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).

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

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. Lordbuckinghambadger (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is no valid appeal here to transfer to the administrator's noticeboard. To transfer the below comment would only waste time. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2022 (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.

My edits were perfectly acceptable and fell withing wikipedia standards. Again, ridiculous, but glad the wikipedia police could get a rush off of enforcing nonsense that they can't even specifically cite of what I did wrong.

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Geeky1127 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geeky1127. 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 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 ~~~~}}. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

There's no evidence we're sockpuppets, that is nonsense. This is a stupid ban that you should undo but also I don't care. Happy that some of you can feel special by being wikipedia police! Lordbuckinghambadger (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you prefer to name call, and don't care if you are unblocked, I am closing this request. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2022 (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.