User talk:Nousername46000
DS alerts
[edit]
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.
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 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.
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.
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Nousername46000, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Nousername46000! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC) |
March 2021
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Identity Evropa 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.
You are over 3 reverts. Stop it. Revert yourself; you need to provide a citation for your changes. Jorm (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
It's very clear your own hypocracy in this situation. You keep changing my edit of 'was' back to 'is' and asking for a citation. That is frankly ridiculous given the fact that both on the side bar and lower down in the page it clearly states multiple times (with citations) about the group disbanding. Don't forget that you are also reverting my edits, so don't you go giving me warnings for things that you are doing yourself. Looking at your own talk page, it seems this is not the first time you have harassed people for edits you don't like. You also in an earlier revert claimed I needed a citation to get rid of the word 'extremist' from the article, even though when you look through the edit history (you have been on the site for almost a decade and a half so you should know how that works) I clearly added the word in myself without a citation, which you seemed to not have a problem with at all, then I promptly deleted it. Only then did you have a problem. So I would like you to add in a citation for why we must keep the label 'extremist', coming from a genuine non partisan news source. How about you take a look at the actual article before changing back people's edits and stop making politicized edits to articles to things you don't like. Nousername46000 (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Ways to improve 2025 Polish presidential election
[edit]Hello, Nousername46000,
Thank you for creating 2025 Polish presidential election.
I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Meatsgains}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Meatsgains(talk) 02:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
April 2021
[edit]
Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to 1930 Romanian local elections—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
May 2021
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nick Fuentes. 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.
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. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
July 2021
[edit] You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nick Fuentes. 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.
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.
"how is what i'm doing edit warring?"
Have a read of this page, especially the first sentence. It's pretty clear. Calton | Talk 21:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
By your definition, I should be dropping a warning on your page for participating in an edit war, since apparently it only takes one edit. I'm trying to come up with a compromise between the two parties and just undoing everything with procedural methods is highly unproductive and only escalates the conflict. I'm going to add on to the talk page so that I can hear your opinion and the other guy's opinion on the matter, and I hope to see you there so that we can settle the dust without trying to get each other banned. Nousername46000 (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | 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 |