User talk:Ryanfoster99

Welcome!

Hello, Ryanfoster99, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Neutrality^talk 05:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice regarding all edits about, and all pages related to (i) abortion and (ii) the post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people

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.

Neutrality^talk 05:18, 14 April 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 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 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.

Neutrality^talk 05:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note regarding Wikipedia policies

Hello,

Welcome to our community. Please take some time to review Wikipedia:Edit warring, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. When making edits to articles that might be viewed as contentious, please check the article talk page to see if there has been a prior discussion (or consensus) on a point. Thanks! Neutrality^talk 05:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Your recent editing history at Fake news 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo your last addition. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Presidency of Donald Trump while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. This is especially problematic if the behaviour could be interpreted as an attempt to avoid being limited by discretionary sanctions such as WP:1RR. Murph9000 (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Presidency of Donald Trump 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.
You appear to be wilfully disregarding the WP:CONSENSUS and WP:1RR discretionary sanctions which are clearly visible on this article. Murph9000 (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last chance to self-revert this edit. You were informed of the discretionary sanctions on the page and you know that you must have consensus to reinstate an edit. Please revert. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of Arbitration Enforcement Request

There is an Arbitration Enforcement Request related to your edits. You can find the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ryanfoster99 EvergreenFir (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for Violating 1RR on Presidency of Donald Trump, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2017 (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" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Blocked

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).

Ryanfoster99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I have tried to reason with others as to my section, but my edits were reversed without a fair discussion. This page states that they believe in diverse ideas and contributions, yet you block me because I'm posting nonbiased, factually correct information that others don't like? Others never tried to reason with me. This block is unjustified and I request that it be removed immediately and that the reach for consensus continues.

Decline reason:

Edit warring is edit warring, whether you think you are right or wrong. Edit warring on a page subject to a 1RR restriction, of which you had been notified, is particularly egregious. You claim not to be new around here, just to have recently registered an account, so you should know how this goes by now. Instead you are still arguing that you were in the right. I therefore decline this appeal; the block is nearly over now anyway and I suggest you wait it out patiently. When you return to editing, you must take good notice of the restriction Lord Roem has informed you of below. I suggest, if you wish to continue contributing to Wikipedia, that you find some completely unrelated field in which you are interested and contribute constructively there. Any editing around the edges of your topic ban will be viewed dimly and attempting to argue your way out of further sanctions is not likely to win you friends or get you what you want.

Most of this is my advice to you rather than a formal restriction, but I think it represents wisdom and that you would be well-advised to take it on board. It represents my experience of how the community responds to cases such as yours. GoldenRing (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2017 (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.

Talkback

Hello, Ryanfoster99. You have new messages at Murph9000's talk page.
Message added 02:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Murph9000 (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned from from all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. This ban lasts for 6 months and may be made indefinite should disruption continue.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ryanfoster99

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ryanfoster99. - Mr X 00:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating the topic ban imposed under Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions on the page Presidency of Donald Trump, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:44, 16 June 2017 (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" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Let me be blunt: You got off easy. I chose to only block you one week and not extend the topic ban. The edit you made was sourced and wasn't inflammatory, which helped your case, but you are still not allowed to edit political articles for 6 months. It is very likely that if this happens again, you topic ban will be doubled and your block will be a month. The community doesn't play around with Arb restricted areas. This article was very clearly under the topic ban. If you want to edit an article and you aren't sure, check the talk page notices to see if it is covered, or ask any experienced editor or better yet, an admin, first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]