User talk:Proustfala

Proustfala, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Proustfala! 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 experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. clpo13_(talk) 22:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American politics editing

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.

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Donna Brazile. WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source. Please provide a better source. KNHaw ^(talk) 00:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

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 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. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 02:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notice carefully

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.

Doug Weller talk 09:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing on biographies of living people, notably edit warring to insert this edit with a source that doesn't support it. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 09:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadiq Khan & Trumps tweets

It is pretty obvious that your attempt to link the Mayor of London to terrorism came after Trump's tweets and is not a coincidence. Please do not do this again. Doug Weller talk 11:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Guanaco. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to South of Market, San Francisco— because it did not appear constructive. 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. —Guan aco 11:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kevin de León. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times edit

~~Hi there! This is just a friendly reminder to please source your content and your claims. I've removed it for now, per WP:BRD. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strike above with my apologies. Have a good day. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jeong DR

Hello, I have brought the unfruitful Sarah Jeong discussion to dispute resolution and am notifying you because you have commented on the Talk page since August 3. You can find a link here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Sarah_Jeong. All the best, Ikjbagl (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

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 recently 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 any 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.

I am posting this on your talkpage out of an abundance of caution solely because you recently edited Talk:Sarah Jeong and, as the message says, not suggesting any policy violation by you. Abecedare (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times

If you would look at the relevant talk page, you will see there is a discussion re: the edit you keep re-inserting. If you continue to re-insert that material while ignoring the discussion, I will assume you are edit-warring. PaulCHebert (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Your recent editing history at The New York Times 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 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. David J Johnson (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of people from San Francisco, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Evan Williams and Ed Lee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Proustfala. 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]

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of people from San Francisco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gilbert Baker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of people from San Francisco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Angelo Rossi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, 3RR

Your recent editing history 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 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Alert Post 1932 American Politics

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 recently 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 any 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.

~ GB fan 20:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Proustfala reported by User:GB fan (Result: ). Thank you. ~ GB fan 20:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Tucker Carlson. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. -- Scott (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I did. I initiated the talk page, once my edits were deleted. They then continued to delete them over and over again. I have done everything the right way, and am being punished. I went to Wiki help, I opened a dispute, I created a talk page. And yet still I am blocked for contributing *factual information* to a public figure. They are the ones vandalizing the article by eliminating a completely factual piece of information. This is why Wikipedia cannot hold onto editors or donors. Proustfala (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't do everything the right way. You were reverted by multiple people and you edit warred to retain your preferred version. You weren't blocked for contributing factual information. You were blocked for edit warring. ~ GB fan 00:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

You currently appear to be 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. 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.

You were blocked for edit-warring and resumed the same edit war after the block expired. I strongly suggest that you self-revert. O3000 (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Tucker Carlson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Proustfala reported by User:Galobtter (Result: ). Thank you. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to edits as vandalism that people have repeatedly explained why they are reasonable is a quick way to get blocked or topic banned from American Politics. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Proustfala. You are continuing the same edit war about the party affiliation of Tucker Carlson for which you were blocked for a week in early December. Since you are not listening, an administrator might be tempted to block you for a longer time. You may still respond to the report and promise to wait for consensus before editing again. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring, as you did at Tucker Carlson. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. -- Scott (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am trying to add the factual information that public figure Tucker Carlson's political party is Democrat, into the infobox. A bunch of people are upset about this, because he isn't what THEY think of as a Democrat, despite the fact that he is *factually* a registered member of the Democratic Party. They keep deleting my addition to the article (Siri Knowledge from Wikipedia currently lists Carlson as a Republican, which is *FALSE*, yet I am the one being sanctioned for some bizarre reason I can't understand). I graduated with a 3.5+ GPA from one of the top schools in the world and I still cannot figure out how to add *factual information* to a Wikipedia article without being overtaken by looney toons. I've been contributing for 12+ years, but this is unsustainable. Every time I add something to an article related to politics, I have to deal with this genre of nitwit. I should be unblocked, and they should all be blocked for vandalism. But I have very little energy left to give to this website - it is a total joke, IMO, the way it is currently going (editorial decision by mob/majority rule).

Decline reason:

1) Edit warring is not an acceptable way to resolve disputes, even if you are right (and in this case the consensus appears to be firmly against you). 2) Insulting other editors is not an appropriate approach to use in an unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:21, 26 December 2018 (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.

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of people from San Francisco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Yorker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of people from San Francisco, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Babes in Toyland and L7 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of people from San Francisco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Gilmore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of people from San Francisco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Primus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of people from San Francisco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Russell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[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) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of people from San Francisco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Simpson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of people from San Francisco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Consolidated.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]