User talk:MikaelaArsenault

July 2014

Hello, I'm SummerPhD. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Disneymania 2 without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! SummerPhD (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, I'm Tutelary. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Bratz: Motion Picture Soundtrack with this edit, without 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. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bratz: Motion Picture Soundtrack with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		Congratulations for your sharp dedication to truth at Bratz: Motion Picture Soundtrack with your two attempted removals of hoax material in September 2014. You were the only one who saw through the false listing created by the Bronx Hoaxer. Good eye! Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people

Mikaela, what did you not understand when I told you the first time? In the words of another editor:

“

Lists of people must meet the criteria listed at WP:LISTPEOPLE. Articles have been protected to prevent these additions and/or the editors in question blocked when they persistently continue to reinsert inappropriate material. If a name is included in the article in this way, it has to show that it's relevant to the subject by meeting WP:LISTPEOPLE. Just because a station lists its employees doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to as well, and other station articles needing similar cleanup doesn't mean this one doesn't need to be cleaned up, because whenever it's actually discussed on a station article, the end result is the same; the names that don't meet WP:LISTPEOPLE are removed. Wikipedia is also not a directory. See here, here, and here for previous discussions about this.

”

In other words -- Don't add names that do not have an article! Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 00:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MikaelaArsenault. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, MikaelaArsenault. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, MikaelaArsenault. 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]

September 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Masked Singer (American season 2), 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. Magitroopa (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source was from Entertainment Tonight.

--MikaelaArsenault (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)MikaelaArsenault[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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi MikaelaArsenault! You created a thread called Difficulty with using the live help chat at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in 2020

I'm not sure why you removed the Harry Hains entry from Deaths in 2020 as you didn't leave an edit summary explaining your actions. It appears that you rarely use edit summaries, despite community consensus that they should be used. Please consider doing so moving forward. In the meantime, I've reverted your removal of the sourced content as, per the FAQ at Talk:Deaths in 2020, redlinks and redirects are maintained for 30 days.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Realiable sources

Why is this unreliable? Please, explain. Expecially from someone who adds CODs basing themselves on FB comments. --Folengo (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

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 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.

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.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in 2020, part 2

If you don't know how to make proper changes to a page, like this at DI2020, please leave it for others who do or request it at the talk page. Thank you. — Wylie pedia @ 22:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block of User:MikaelaArsenault on Terry Jones. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Why does your link to the thread not lead to anything like that? Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See archive at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1028#Block of User:MikaelaArsenault on Terry Jones. Johnuniq (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. User is a regular visitor to a page I edit daily, and has caused some disruption generally, though mostly I suspect due to innocence and lack of craft. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

A minor issue: when signing talk page posts, the ~~~~ should be the very last thing in your post. It seems that you might instead be signing with ~~~~MikaelaArsenault.

It's also possible, instead, that you modified your default signature at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal, in which case I'd suggest blanking it out there and un-checking the "Treat the above as wiki markup" (if it is checked). (If you respond to me here, please prefix it with {{Re|AlanM1}} to notify me.) Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MikaelaArsenault: (pinging user here) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi MikaelaArsenault! You created a thread called Banned from an IRC channel at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Ellis Marsalis Jr., but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source was NOLA.com.

https://www.nola.com/entertainment_life/music/article_bbdaf4c4-7481-11ea-92ae-1758b23c65c8.html MikaelaArsenault (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[action recommended] This talk page cleanup

You may wish to remove any messages that you have read, and no longer consider necessary to use as a starting point for discussion. This is allowed by the Wikipedia personal talk page policies. --Gryllida (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[action required] Live chat

Please take some steps necessary to ensure that you do not, ever, come to the live chat from a mobile. It is a very disruptive thing to do: we start typing a response, and then you disappear from the chat before receiving it. This is counter productive, and is making it enormously difficult to converse.

Please do something about it. Thank you. --Gryllida (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that, and I'll make sure to do it today when I have access to my computer later today. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 10:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[action recommended] Responding to messages on-wiki

To reply to a message, click 'edit' next to a section heading. Type your message at the end, followed by four tildes. Then click publish. Please give it a try; it is an essential skill for on-wiki communication, particularly when editing together with others. --Gryllida (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Robinson (footballer)

I've re-added the section about voice overs, not sure it's a great addition to the article but I found a ref, hope that's ok with you, revert if you disagree Joseywales1961 (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s okay with me, but I'm still not sure if it’s a great addition to the article.

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Deaths in 2020, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. WWGB (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by a warning? MikaelaArsenault (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It means you are not doing the right thing, so please stop. Do not remove a valid death entry just because the date is wrong. WWGB (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, and I will stop. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your question on IRC

I wanted to respond to your question. It is important to have discussions on talk pages, but it's also important to understand that you must wait for people to respond. It's generally considered polite to wait up to 3-5 days for a response as other people don't necessarily check Wikipedia every day. Waggie (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Touched by an Angel

The fact that certain episodes are not available on a TV channel or streaming platform is irrelevant to an episode list. This information is not notable. As I mentioned in my edits...Touched by an Angel is available on CBS All Access...but some episodes are missing. If your edit for a channel that most people do not have is "encyclopedic", then so is the ones missing from CBS AA...or any other channel/streaming service that shows this show and you must include them. But, since Wikipedia is not intended to keep track of what episodes stream or are currently broadcast in syndication, this information is extraneous and trivial. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sourcing

Where is the source for this? You have been repeatedly made aware of the requirements for sourcing recent deaths and articles of living people and in fact have been notified of discretionary sanctions. Can you explain why you thought it a good idea to restore contested content to an unsourced version? Praxidicae (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was the source I used.

https://operawire.com/obituary-legendary-mezzo-soprano-rosalind-elias-passes-at-90/

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

which of these 16 diffs did you add a source? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. Praxidicae (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Number 14. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MikaelaArsenault Did you look at the diff you provided? Praxidicae (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLP discretionary sanctions

You were previously warned about discretionary sanctions being in place on biographies of living persons by Coffee in January 2020. I am now, as result of your unsourced edits to Rosalind Elias today, prohibiting you from editing biographies of living persons for a period of one year, and more generally I am also prohibiting you from making any substantive edits to any articles unless accompanied by a reliable source (either using an existing source on the page, or where necessary, by the addition of a new/additional reference along with your edit). This is an arbitration discretionary sanction, logged as such at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#Biographies_of_Living_Persons. You may appeal this sanction by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications, or you may ping me for further clarification of precisely what I am intending, should you be unclear about any aspect of this sanction. Nick (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following discussion below, I'm adding the following to the sanction "edit requests are permitted, but only when accompanied by a suitable reliable source". The source does not need to be a new source, an existing source present within the article can be used to justify any edit you wish to make. Nick (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I appeal a sanction?

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: As you can see, Mikaela has gotten blocked after making 3 more BLP edits (or at least edits to 3 very recently deceased). She has been in IRC and Discord asking for advice today. Once her block ends, a one point that might need clarification is whether or not she would still be allowed to make edit requests for a BLP? -- ferret (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: I would like to say yes, because I don't want to be excessively harsh here, but I am worried such edit requests will be made without source material and I will have simply moved the BLP problem from an article onto a talk page or into the Wikipedia namespace. I am therefore inclined to say "No". What do you think, before I give a final answer ? Nick (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: Although it got her blocked, she began to list a source in her edit note these last 3 edits. If she includes sources with her BLP edit requests in a similar manner, it provides an avenue to show she's gaining understanding of whats required for BLPs. There may be some benefit to her having to explain what she wants changed in an edit request, compared to when she directly edits articles. -- ferret (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: I'd agree, so an addition to the edit sanction being "edit requests are permitted, but only when accompanied by a suitable reliable source" would be my preferred option. Nick (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: Agreed. -- ferret (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikaela, please for the sake of your sanity, take a break for a few days before doing edit requests again; when you come back, please request edits on Wikipedia instead of discord or IRC. Thank you. I dream of horses (t) (c) Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page 20:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will.

What I was thinking was doing edit requests all in a new section in this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deaths_in_2020

It's going to be called Edit Requests.

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

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.

stwalkerster (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2020 (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."

What can and can’t I edit when I am unblocked?

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are banned from editing the biographies of living people and you are banned from making substantial edits unless accompanied by a reliable source. The first part of the ban, concerning the biographies of living people should be considered to be broad and wide reaching. You should not make any edits to any biographical article where the subject is living or has recently died, nor should you add, remove or modify any biographical content within other articles, such as musical group articles which carry content on the individual band members, where they do not have their own articles. If you have any doubts, you are encouraged to ask (you have used IRC and Discord previously, they are good places to ask, alternatively you may use a help-me request). The second part of your ban restricts you from making significant edits to non biography articles without providing reliable sources to allow the content you add to be independently verified. You may use existing sources within the article, it is not necessary to find and add further sources, but it is important that you clearly show a source together with your changes to the article, in order that an uninvolved editor can verify the accuracy of your edit. I will add, I don't specifically require each edit you make to include a source, only that your sources are added in a timely manner (typically within a few minutes, each time - you may wish to add your text in one edit and then your sources in another edit immediately afterwards, that would be acceptable) and that when you finish making your edits to an article, your changes are fully sourced.
Ferret and I have previously discussed and we are prepared to accept edit requests from you (I expect this to be infrequent, not a significant number per day) for biographical articles when supported by a suitable reliable source. If you are unable to find a reliable source, either for biographical articles, or for any other article you wish to edit, you should restrict yourself to making edits (or edit requests) which can be supported by the available sources.
If you have further questions about your editing restriction, I am happy to offer further clarifications. Nick (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still have further questions about my editing restrictions. Can you please offer further clarifications?

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikaela, I'd be happy to assist further, as I'm sure Nick will be as well. But you'll need to ask us a specific question. Is there a particular point you need clarification on? -- ferret (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: we're going to get hundreds of edit requests from Mikaela every day, aren't we. Nick (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s what I was afraid of, and I don’t want to do hundreds of edit requests.

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit requests

Hi Mikaela! I see you have been suggesting edits using the {{edit request}} template. Since you do not have a conflict of interest, I suggest you use the {{help me}} template instead. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoingBatty!

The reason why I have to use the edit request template is because I'm not allowed to edit BLP's and recent deaths.

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikaela, this is probably an oversight on me and Nick's part. Edit request is specifically for conflict of interest. Please switch to the "Help me" template. You can keep using the same format for your edits. -- ferret (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone said that I shouldn’t use the "Help me" template.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deaths_in_2020#Birth_year_of_Lucky_Peterson

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikaela, I'd like to encourage you to remove your last edit request on the 2020 deaths article as a random tweet is not remotely a reliable source and part of your topic ban requirement when requesting is that you must provide a reliable source. Praxidicae (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that Praxidicae. I thought that it would be worth mentioning, but I'll remove it.

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikaela, I would suggest you re-review WP:RS. Social media is almost always considered an unreliable source, except in very specific circumstances which probably wouldn't apply to the topic area you seem to be focusing on. I'm pretty sure we've covered this with you already several times, do you remember discussing it with us? Waggie (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. If you remember us discussing it with you, and remember that social media isn't reliable, why did you propose a change including this Twitter source? I'm trying to understand so we can try and help you better. Waggie (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw an article with the tweet, and thought that it was a good idea to propose a change. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But again, if you remember that we told you that social media wasn't a reliable source, why would you propose it with that source? Your editing restriction specifically states that you must provide a reliable source. Waggie (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should’ve never even done it in the first place.

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to contradict the earlier advice you've been given but the template you should be using for your edit requests is this one: {{Edit partially-blocked}} since it corresponds exactly to your situation. Use this template to show the sorts of proper edits you would make if your block were removed. Notifying @GoingBatty, Ferret, Nick, and Waggie:. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To further clarify, this is a much newer template, and has not been promoted or used much at all. I suspect that is why it was not suggested to you sooner. As a sidenote, @Jmcgnh:, I did not receive a notification, but saw the update on my watchlist. Waggie (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I searched for potentially-more-appropriate templates for quite a while and never came across this one. Mikaela was also not partially blocked at the time this was originally stated to her. -- ferret (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will definitely make sure to use the {{Edit partially-blocked}} template next time. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome aboard matey!

Ahoy! Welcome aboard the SS Wikipedia, it do be yer captain speaking! You are hereby commissioned into CaptainEek's crew as a deckhand. If ye be crafty and good at catching sources, it won't be long before you graduate with a captainship of yer own.

Nah but seriously, glad to have you as an adoptee, you look like you care and want to get more involved. I'm excited to work with you. As an adopter, I like to have folks focus on content creation first. We can go into some other areas if you'd like, but it seems like you would appreciate some guidance on sourcing. You expressed interest in eventually having your topic ban lifted. The best way to do that will be to stay well away from such topics, while creating solid content with good sourcing that shows you know your stuff. The best way to teach you is to have your improve one (or several) articles, and I will help you throughout. So that's your first task, matey! Catch a couple of good pages you'd be interested in working on, and we'll pick one or two out to focus efforts on. Then we'll go about sourcing, and how to build an article!

Whenever you want me to look at something, make sure you ping me or drop a note on my talk page. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions reminder

Hello Mikaela. It has been brought to our attention (myself and stwalkerster) that you have resumed editing biographies of living and recently deceased persons in contravention of your topic ban which was made under the authority of the Arbitration Committee Discretionary Sanctions system.

I wish to make absolutely clear the topic ban that you are under. You must not edit any biography of a living person, or a person who has recently died. You are expected to read the policy on biographies of living persons but for the avoidance of doubt and ease of discussion here, the BLP policy covers anybody born within the past 115 years (on or after 26 June 1905) and includes recently deceased persons for a period of time, typically anything from six months to two years. It certainly covers people who have died in recent days and edits concerning details of their death, including causes of death, medical conditions, legal issues arising from their death and other material which could be contentious, harmful to the relatives of the deceased and others connected with the deceased.

I do not intend to take any enforcement action today, you have previously been adhering to the topic ban by posting edit requests on talk pages, and that is something we wish you to continue doing. I believe a reminder with some further information about the topic ban would be more useful.

-- Nick (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder with some further information would be nice, thank you.

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What further information do you require, MikaelaArsenault ? Nick (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About my topic ban.

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what you currently understand about your topic ban and I'll fill in any blanks which have occurred. Nick (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This:

I do not intend to take any enforcement action today, you have previously been adhering to the topic ban by posting edit requests on talk pages, and that is something we wish you to continue doing.

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikaela, it means simply that Nick decided not to block you today, because up until now you have been following the rules. He decided to give you one last warning and a chance to return to editing properly through edit requests. If you break the rules again though, you'll likely be blocked again, and for longer than the last time. -- ferret (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about all of this. I won’t do it again.

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

What part of my edit summary here, which you reverted was unclear? And what is your reason for reverting it? We don't need every sordid detail of someones death and funeral unless it's covered by multiple reliable sources. Praxidicae (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

To enforce an arbitration decision and for Edit warring over low quality/poor quality sources concerning death details of a deceased person, in contravention of the topic ban which restricted you from editing the biographies of living people AND more generally, from making substantive unsourced edits to any other articles, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

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.

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."

Nick (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to talk with CaptainEek about this.

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saw more activity on my watchlist here and thought I'd look.. I'm not sure what talking with CaptainEek will accomplish. Your topic ban has been made quite clear on several occasions (ie: "You are banned from editing the biographies of living people and you are banned from making substantial edits unless accompanied by a reliable source..." and "You must not edit any biography of a living person, or a person who has recently died.". Yet you clearly made edits in violation of this here, here, and here to name a few. Additionally, reverting Praxidicae's removal of a non-RS (where her removal rationale was explained VERY clearly in the edit summary) without even leaving an edit summary of why is also pushing the envelope quite a bit. What, precisely, is not clear about what is being asked of you? Waggie (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Christian

Good pickup on the date of death, but please remember that on Deaths in 2020 we only use simple cites (url and headline). Thanks, WWGB (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome, and sorry about that. The reason why the source was changed is because the original article that was used had something that said Thursday, August 14th.

https://deadline.com/2020/08/ash-christian-dies-emmy-award-winning-producer-actor-filmmaker-was-35-1203014366/

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 202105040000 from certain namespaces ((Article)). You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

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.

-- ferret (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2020 (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."

What do you mean by this? MikaelaArsenault (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a partial block which prevents you from editing articles until the end of your sanction in May 2021. At this time, you are still allowed to edit talk pages and make proper edit requests with reliable secondary sources. If you violate your sanction further by making edit requests without proper sourcing, the block may be updated to be a full site block. -- ferret (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I may consider filing the appeal again very soon. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

It has been brought to our attention that you have been editing whilst logged out, consequently I have blocked your IP range for 1 year and I have indefinitely blocked this account. If you have any questions concerning this indefinite block, please ping me or another administrator here. You can find instructions for appealing the block at this page. I am specifically not classing this block as an Arbitration Enforcement block, but if the block is successfully appealed, I would ask that the reviewing administrator reimpose the Mainspace partial block to expire on 2021-05-04T01:00:00, which was an AE action. Nick (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I still leave talk pages? MikaelaArsenault (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. You're done. Nearly 6 months of deliberate violation of your sanctions and blocks, there is no more chances here. Nick may not be calling this an arbcom block, but I would personally oppose any unblock appeal made. -- ferret (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can my Wikipedia account be deleted then? MikaelaArsenault (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts cannot be deleted. Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing is not available for users who are not in good standing, especially those looking to avoid scrutiny and having been caught doing so. To be clear: You are not in good standing. -- ferret (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can my user page be blanked out? MikaelaArsenault (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- ferret (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discord ban

Hi. I've banned you from the Discord server at this time, as you're using it to ask users to proxy edit for you in violation of your topic ban and block. If and when you successfully appeal your block, you may contact me to be unbanned. -- ferret (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. How can I appeal my block?

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to appealing blocks. -- ferret (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I have waited approximately 6 months and I understand what I was blocked for. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have had five blocks for this, 4 of them for violating your topic ban. I don't think you do understand.

Also you violated your ban again a month ago by asking people on discord to edit for you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:39, 11 August 2021 (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.

1) I understand that I violated my topic ban by continuing to edit BLP's even when I wasn’t supposed to. I also reverted edits without explaining why I reverted them.

2) I ignored the warnings of multiple people because I didn't like what they did to my edits and what they said about them.

3) It won’t happen again, and I'll change my behavior by doing talk pages along with not focusing on BLP's/dead people and focusing on subjects other than those.

While I think this user is a poor candidate for unblocking, checkuser evidence shows no instances of block evasion in the recent logs. This should count in favour of any future unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that I never started asking people on Discord to edit for me.

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla and HighInBC: If an unblock is successful, the user's topic ban from BLPs should probably continue as part of the unblock conditions. While she says she won't focus on BLP/dead people, that has continued to be the only area she has discussed. It may be clearer for her sake if the topic ban is from *people* period, so that the murkiness around "recently deceased" is out of the picture. Just don't edit people/individuals at all. -- ferret (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had a few things in mind if my appeal was successful, and they weren't people. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to successfully appeal, you should give examples and show how you plan to edit going forward. -- ferret (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are not permitted to remove declined unblock requests for your currently active block. Do not do so again. --Yamla (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry.

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Max & Ruby:

The source for Norman Foote singing the theme song instead of The Manhattan Transfer:

https://www.allmusic.com/song/max-ruby-opening-theme-mt0039762264

Ripley's Believe It Or Not!:

The source for the 2000-2003 version of the show airing on Sci Fi in 2005:

https://variety.com/2004/scene/markets-festivals/sci-fi-believes-in-ripley-1117915166/

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving talk page messages for other users

Do I still have the ability to leave talk page messages for other users or just my talk page only? MikaelaArsenault (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only your talk page. You don't actually have an open unblock appeal, which is likely why you haven't had any responses yet. -- ferret (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have the ability to leave edit requests again though?

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to make an appeal, but it's unlikely to succeed as you have not really demonstrated what was asked of you in the last appeal. -- ferret (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have something in mind that I would like to do if the appeal succeeds, but I forgot how to make an appeal.

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 10:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions are in the declined unblock template above. -- ferret (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot leave message on talk page

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Randy_Barlow?markasread=327662981&markasreadwiki=enwiki#c-TenPoundHammer-20240928180200-MikaelaArsenault-2020-07-31T08:33:00.000Z

Someone mentioned me in a comment on a talk page, but I can’t reply back to it because I'm blocked. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]