User talk:Pawpur

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-1932 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.

Jonathunder (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

The article Racial views of Donald Trump has a 1 revert rule: the edit notice for the page states

"You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article."
"If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit."

Edit warring

This edit [1] is a violation of the 1RR as noted above. Please revert. Thanks zzz (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe 1RR rules apply to the edit that I made yesterday which was a separate and distinct edit. If I am incorrect please point out where the rules say differently and I will revert my edit immediately. Pawpur (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:3RR, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." A revert is a revert, it doesn't matter if it is reverting something different, if it's on the same page. zzz (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:TPG - don't alter other people's comments, like my one above. zzz (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, I am self-reverting now. After reading the 3RR rules it looks like I made a total of just 3 reverts so I don't think I technically broke the rule but I will remove it per your request anyway and wait at least 24 hours. Pawpur (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've previously asked you to read the page-level editing restrictions on that article. You are "allowed" ONE revert and you are required to engage on the talk page to explain and seek support for the rationale you believe supports your revert, before continuing to edit such content into the article. You would really do well to slow down and pay more attention to the restrictions and the comments of other editors on that page. By the time multiple editors have warned you, that much should be clear. SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO what you said just above is incorrect and makes no sense. Not only have I responded and engaged on the talk page to seek support for the rationale which supports my edits, but I just added a new section to the talk page earlier today. As far as the 1RR rule I have not broken that rule since I didn't reinsert the "xenophobic" text. So you are incorrect on both of your accusations against me. Pawpur (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:EW and WP:1RR and make sure you understand the definition of "revert" and how revert restrictions work. SPECIFICO talk 01:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(WP:Edit conflict) Seeking support is insufficient: you also need to actually obtain support. Especially on a page under WP:Discretionary sanctions. zzz (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that is true then SPECIFICO also needs to obtain support for the change they made yesterday (which removed longstanding consensus text) in the opening sentence of the article. Why are you not warning SPECIFICO of that on their talk page as well? Pawpur (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are referring to, and besides it's not my job to be "warning" people; I just wanted to make sure you understand the rules. Cheers zzz (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You and SPECIFICO are clearly harassing me, please stop. If you want to "make sure people understand the rules" you shouldn't single me out when SPECIFICO is also in violation of the rules. They removed longstanding consensus text, but that seems to go unchallenged by you or other users. Pawpur (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

?!! Btw, you just misquoted me - please don't do that. Bye, now zzz (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not misquote you, please stop making false accusations and please stop harassing me (I asked you this before but you continue to post on my talk page). Why don't you apply the same strict enforcement you seem to be doing to me for SPECIFICO (who made false accusations also e.g. that I didn't engage on the talk page when I clearly have several times). Pawpur (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Racial views of Donald Trump

Please read WP:MINOR, which describes how and when the "minor" box may be ticked as an edit summary. Your recent edit at Racial views of Donald Trump should not have been marked "minor" because there is substantive disagreement among editors and talk page discussion as to that content. Because the misuse of the "minor" box affects the way in which editors are notified of your change, you should self-undo that edit and -- if you insist on it -- redo the change with whatever reason or summary you choose to offer. However, please be advised that your reinstatement of that content, which you previously placed in the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump&diff=909216262&oldid=909173168 is a violation of the Enforced BRD sanction that has been applied to this article. Accordingly you would reinstate it at your own risk -- because you have not, per that sanction, engaged in the talk page discussion section where previous editors' dissenting edit summaries should be addressed. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you also posted on Eyer's talk page (unless your intent is simply to harass me again) because they also marked their edit minor, which is why I assumed it was appropriate to use the minor tag for that specific edit. You also accused me of a "DS violation" but gave no evidence. Pawpur (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I specified your violation see my previous message to you above. You can review how the sanction works at the top of the article talk page. If you need help with editing and Wikipedia policies and behavioral norms, you can request help at the WP:HELPDESK. SPECIFICO talk 22:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, I will look into that. You may want to also, especially the behavioral norms part...Pawpur (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]