User talk:Pschaeffer

November 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Clements High School, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at 2012 Benghazi attack. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Threats

Hello, Pschaeffer,

Please do not threaten other Wikipedia editors. You are free to present a case at one of our noticeboards, like ANI, but don't say you've "reported" an editor when you haven't put together a complaint. It serves to discourage and intimidate other editors and is not civil. Also, generally it's a really bad idea to share personal information like your email address on talk pages.

If you have questions about editing on Wikipedia, I encourage you to visit the Teahouse where editors can address your concerns. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:2012 Benghazi attack, you may be blocked from editing. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification

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-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.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Hello, Pschaeffer,

I'm just letting you know that your complaint is likely to be removed without being addressed because it was not complete or posted correctly, so it is impossible for admins to judge its merits. In just one example, you didn't state who this complaint was about, it simply says "Username" and not a specific editor. It also doesn't state which Arbitration decision this complaint concerns. It's impossible to state an arbitration decision needs enforcement when you haven't identified which arbitration case it concerns and which sanctions have been violated. My guess in your case is that it involves American politics 2, but this is your complaint so you will have to do the legwork here.

As an unsolicited opinion, you might have more success at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard which is a less formal forum for resolving disputes. A/R/E has more strict requirements and is less forgiving of errors. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent WP:BLP violations at 2012 Benghazi attack

Hello Pschaeffer. If the behavior described at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Talk page comments on Talk:2012 Benghazi attack continues you are likely to be blocked for disruption. Your edit here about Hillary Clinton seems to violate our policy on WP:Biographies of living persons. The text that you added was:

However, it became clear that Hillary Clinton lied to the American people about the attack. She publicly blamed the attach on a video while telling her own daughter (by Email) otherwise. Even the next day she was still publicly lying about the attach.

Your addition to the article did not mention any references that could prove your claim. So, by our standards, your addition was unsourced defamation. Please reflect on whether Wikipedia is the right place for you to be expressing your opinions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Pschaeffer! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, What do I need to do?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

M.Bitton (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did not edit any Wikipedia pages. They are locked. I did add to a talk page. Pschaeffer (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Talk:Imane Khelif, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. M.Bitton (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made no effort to edit the Wikipedia Imane Khelif page. I could not edit the Wikipedia Imane Khelif page even if I wanted to (the page is locked). I added to the associated talk page. Apparently, that is even not acceptable. Pschaeffer (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I saw your joke--if User:EvergreenFir hadn't blocked you already, I would have blocked you indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for repeated BLP violations and disruptive polemic editing on the page Talk:Imane Khelif, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 72 hours. 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.

EvergreenFir (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2024 (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"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Hi, Pschaeffer. I've been watching the article (and its talkpage) since it was last brought to WP:BLPN. You are correct: I added to the associated talk page. Apparently, that is even not acceptable. Even talks and noticeboards are subject to WP:BLP standards. Even here. If certain content is revertible for a BLP reason on a live page, it's likely not fit anywhere else either. Please give this news topic some time. It looks like you've got about 3 days. The BLP guidelines are long, but that's probably more than enough time to have a read. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia that lies is not an encyclopedia. Wikipedia says Imane Khelif is female. [redacted] Pschaeffer (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Adding to a talk page is no reason for blocking someone

Decline reason:

Perhaps you'll be happier someplace else. Yamla (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2024 (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.