User talk:Signedzzz

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rand Paul

Any reason why you deleted the fact that the judge who sentenced Paul's attacker to 30 days in prison, rather than the prosecutors' requested 21 month prison sentence, is a Bill Clinton appointee? Don't tell me it's irrelevant because that is nonsense. Quis separabit? 04:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not mentioned in the ref, so it's WP:OR. zzz (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 North Korea–United States summit

Hello, I recovered the contents regarding the actual international reaction, and I also updated reference of example to international reaction. Please don't remove the facts along with WP:NPOV
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be 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.

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Goodtiming8871: WP:NOR is a WP:policy. zzz (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Zzz:

WP:NPOV is one of the crucial WP:POLICYs, if you remove the international reaction because of your belief or personal preference, and empathise the contrary opinion on the top front side of reaction part, it would be violation of WP:NPOV. Before getting advice from WP:3O, I will response your query on the talk page of the subject. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Gerald Nye

Hello, I see that you have been warned about making disruptive edits. Please don't remove the facts along with WP:NPOV.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be 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. Suite1408 (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Suite1408: Continue falsifying sources and you will no doubt end up getting blocked. zzz (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Signedzzz: It is not my intention to falsify sources, it is my intention to make sure there is balance and compromise. Sorry if you don't care for my edits but don't try to start an edit war and please... try to find some common ground with other fellow Wikipedians and resolve conflicts civilly or you will no doubt end up getting blocked. Suite1408 (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incompetence is not a valid defence in Wikipedia. See WP:CIR. zzz (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible renaming of "Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic dioceses of Pennsylvania"

Signedzzz, I reverted your edits to the lede of Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic dioceses of Pennsylvania, because your revised lede would indicate that this page focuses entirely on the six-diocese grand jury investigation. The title of the page is more general than that; it covers all of Pennsylvania. So -- as it now stands -- the lede needs to be more general.

However, after thinking about your edits, I'm wondering if the page should focus solely on the six-diocese investigation. I've started a section about this on the article's talk page, in case you want to weigh in. Thanks!! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 02:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Effort for Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Your efforts show enough to get a Barnstar. Kurt R. (Zirukurt01)✉ 03:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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.

Stop using the sources on Magic (supernatural) that you can't even access. 1100 BCE is a WP:FRINGE date for Zoroaster. Orientls (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Signedzzz. 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]

United States of America v. Joaquín Guzmán Loera

Hello, thanks for your recent updates at United States of America v. Joaquín Guzmán Loera. BTW, I re-added El Chapo's reaction when the verdict was made. Found a source from the NYT that mentions he was stunned when the verdict was read (the title of the article mentions it, and it is currently at the NYT's main page). Feel free to make the appropriate changes. MX (✉ • ✎) 03:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:MX Thanks for the note. The NYT does say he looked "vaguely stunned"; my reservation is that he cannot be looking both "stunned" and "resigned" (per AP) simultaneously, hence why I think it is better to simply not comment on any interpretations of his facial expression. Frankly, I suspect some kind of schadenfreud is infecting some of the reporting here. I think I'll probably leave it, though, if no one else sees a problem. zzz (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Request

Dear Fellow Wikipedian

I would like to invite you to my RFC request on the page One America News Networks. I am reaching out to you to include your expert opinion and your solution to this problem in the RFC request. Please also invite more editors so that we can have a fair discussion that will improve the page.

Kind Regards

Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2019 (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. Thank you. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC) –[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Signedzzz reported by User:Sanglahi86 (Result: ). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Philippine Drug War. 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 ~~~~}}. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Standard notice about 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 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.

— JFG ^talk 11:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notice carefully.

You are receiving this notice because you recently edited one or more pages relating to blockchain or cryptocurrencies topics. You have not done anything wrong. We just want to alert you that "general" sanctions are authorized for certain types of edits to those pages.

A community decision has authorized the use of general sanctions for pages related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after the editor has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Donald Trump

Hi, could you please self-revert your recent edit to Donald Trump? I haven't removed any relevant sourced content. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The content you removed was both sourced and relevant, and obviously so. So why did you post this? zzz (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which content are you referring to? I may have only moved or merged content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Yuen Long attacks

Hello, I noticed recent additions to:
2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests#Yuen Long pro-Beijing attacks

You may also consider adding some of your content to the main page on the topic as well, because it is in need of some updates and improvements ...
2019 Yuen Long violence

Thanks for your help!!! : ) 65.60.163.223 (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's in need of improvement. I'll have a look. I'm not convinced the attack needs its own page right now, though. zzz (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some editors are cutting content from the Yuen Long section on the HK protests page, and saying it should go to the "main" page where a longer article is more appropriate ... there was already a discussion to merge, and it failed. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that makes any sense, since the "main" page is already much longer. zzz (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that content is being shifted from here: 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests#Yuen Long pro-Beijing attacks to the "main topic page" which is here: 2019 Yuen Long violence

Yes, I understand. I don't see any further need for that. zzz (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14.0.164.168

His edit may be disruptive and he is doing so in 2019 Hong Kong protests page again. Could you help revert it?Mariogoods (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing to worry about: he'll get bored, and after he's finished, all the edits can easily be reverted. zzz (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for supporting my recent albeit unsuccessful RfA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump#Racial views

Hi there, can you explain why you added these multiple citations and other changes you made in this edit? Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there are unnecessary references, it would be helpful if you removed them without removing any article text, otherwise it is too hard to tell what you removed and why. zzz (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you add the article text then? Ideally I would like to hear your reasons why and use that to edit collaboratively. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article text is there as a result of collaborative editing. I merely restored it. zzz (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but for what reason? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:54, 7 September 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) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary 4

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]