User talk:Motsebboh

Oops

Sorry. I was in the process of deleting my warning when you beat me to it. I prematurely issued a warning that was not appropriate; only two of your edits were actually reverts. The article on the SPLC is controversial and you probably should follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle when making significant changes to the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motsebboh, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Motsebboh! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! AmaryllisGardener (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--slakr^\ talk / 03:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agh

I edit-conflicted with you at the CPC article in the course of making mostly minor fixes (broken refs and the like), but I've got to run. I'll take a look later, sorry. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, I'm a fairly leisurely editor. Motsebboh (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 25 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You have managed, in an early edit, to cross paths with one of the most esteemed contributors to this encyclopedia, one that gives inordinate time and attention, in the sphere of his expertise, to move the encyclopedia toward excellence through his efforts on articles in Medicine. While he and I have not always agreed—at least once we have found ourselves on opposing sides of a pitched battle, where I did not present my best—I have found Doc James to be among the most even-handed, collegial, reasonable, and certainly hard working contributors here. If I were forced to choose a single individual for greatest impact at Wikipedia (based on an evaluation more rigourous than simple edit counts), I would be hard pressed to make a better choice than Doc James. He is certainly in the top 5% of all editors by virtue of positive impact.

This said, you have also managed to light upon one of his few editorial weaknesses, but one that means he is helped by thoughtful partners: he is indeed not the finest editor vis-a-vis classical grammatical and related skills. Perhaps an approach in the future, which would lead to mutual respect and productivity, would be to take the time to get an accurate "bearing" on the individual who has differed with you on an edit—are they an earnest, or a reactionary editor; a subject matter expert or a novice; etc.—and then proceed, assuming good faith, to work with them to improve the text of mutual interest, via edits that play to each of your strengths.

There is always cause to praise those who bring the most here; little reason to find a small matter of their imperfection, and trail it before other editors. Simply fixing the mistake, and a respectful "Tidied up your edit at XXX [for usage, grammar, whatever]" is more than sufficient. (Note that despite the lack of such grace and subtlety, the Doc's response was nevertheless a simple "Thank You.")

I wish you well, if this turns out a place you would also like to bring your expertise and effort to bear, for the slow, patient improvement of this important public encyclopedia. User:Leprof_7272 50.179.252.14 (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

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

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

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

Again, welcome! 220 of ^Borg 04:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Just wish those cookies were real!! But Thanks for the warm greeting. Motsebboh (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 21 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI courtesy notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Specifically, you were mentioned at WP:ANI#Alleged_BLP_vios_on_Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers. This is just a courtesy notice. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rona Ambrose is a pro-life feminist

Hello Motsebboh,

I noticed earlier you restored the inclusion of Rona Ambrose as a pro-life feminist. Please review the sources provided on the talk page, and share your opinion. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that there is a 1RR on abortion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion

I've exhausted my single reversion for the day. Can you remove the dishonest suicide sentence? See Talk:Abortion for details. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 02:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jujutsuan:. Sure; but you've got give me a few hours since I reverted Doc James's original propaganda edit less than 24 hours ago. Regards. Motsebboh (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Hello, I'm Parsley Man. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Southern Poverty Law Center have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Parsley Man (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Motsebboh. 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]

Reference errors on 5 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Nina Rosenwald page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War discussion

I've gone ahead and filed the complaint against Sleyece on the Admin page. Discussion will take place here.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse and Harassment

As co-conspirator in abuse and harassment Motsebboh has also been reported. I do not feel safe making "bold" edits. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: Thank you for your warm testimonial. It can be viewed @ Sleyece --Sleyece (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for all of your assistance in attempting to get notable and reliably sourced information added to the SPLC's article. Your efforts are appreciated. TAG (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your assistance. While the criticisms by Ambassador Dermer will most likely not make the cut, to be on the front end of the article, I appreciate your efforts. TAG (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Security Policy

Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To Beyond My Ken: BRD is neither Wikipedia policy nor a guideline and your edit comment in reverting my edit was particularly inept. Motsebboh (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fortunately for us all, occasional ineptness is not against policy, nor is it likely to draw discretionary sanctions, whereas repeatedly edit warring against WP:BRD is a "failure to adhere to ... any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process." Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

CSP

Okay, I see you were talking about a slightly different issue. (But the new section diverts attention from the rfc (as I was).) I suggest you move the comments back to the threaded discussion and preface them with "additionally the sentence in ..." Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Center for Security Policy. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I am not posting this message on BMK's talk page. He's been around a long time and knows the rules. Please consider this message as a word to the wise. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chill. Motsebboh (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A warning for the forgetful

I believe I've asked you before to stop stalking me. I shouldn't need to ask again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gorka

Please be mindful of WP:3RR on this article. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Motsebboh (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Badmintonhist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]