User talk:StreetSign

Welcome!

Hello, StreetSign, 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 complete 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! Acroterion (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Talk:Murder of Seth Rich, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Talk:Murder of Seth Rich 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. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice and warning

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.

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.

SPECIFICO talk 12:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Murder of Dr. Mark Hausknecht (July 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TJH2018 was:

It appears that your submission is either an attempt to be humorous rather than factual, or is an obvious hoax. As Wikipedia strives to contain only factual entries, we can not accept your submission at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Murder of Dr. Mark Hausknecht and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Murder of Dr. Mark Hausknecht, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TJH2018 talk 18:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Murder of Dr. Mark Hausknecht (July 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RoySmith was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

I'm not sure what to do here. Part of this is easy; there's no references, so this is clearly unusable in its current form. Please see WP:BIO and WP:RS. A little searching finds sufficient coverage to convince me that this is not, as the previous reviewer said, a hoax. The bigger question is whether this will meet the notability bar of WP:BIO. My guess is not. We generally don't have articles about individual crimes, where WP:BLP1E applies. In this case, due to the connection to a former president, sufficient sources may emerge. But, we need to see those sources in the article before any real evaluation can be done.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Murder of Dr. Mark Hausknecht and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Murder of Dr. Mark Hausknecht, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-- RoySmith (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, StreetSign! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! -- RoySmith (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Murder of Dr. Mark Hausknecht (July 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gbawden was:

This reads like a case of WP:NOTNEWS

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Murder of Dr. Mark Hausknecht and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Murder of Dr. Mark Hausknecht, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gbawden (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories

I don't subscribe to any conspiracy theories.

Nope. Can't imagine how anyone could reach that conclusion.

The (clumsily-applied) mask slips. So, to repeat: Wikipedia is NOT wedging in your pet conspiracy theory as if it were true. Stop pushing or you run the risk of being blocked or the far greater chance of simply being topic-banned. --Calton | Talk 21:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Proposed topic ban for StreetSign". Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are heading towards being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Might I suggest that you make the decision to change your ways, go to the AN thread linked above, and show some indication that you understand what you did wrong and that you promise to not do it again? AN is usually quite liberal with second chances if you promise to not be disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed topic ban for StreetSign moved to ANI

This is to notify you the discussion involving you has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban for StreetSign (moved from AN).—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have closed the WP:ANI thread with a Topic ban. The result is: Because of long term, disruptive, repetitive bludgeoning of the discussion at Talk:Murder of Seth Rich, User:StreetSign is subject to an indefinite topic ban on the subject of Seth Rich, broadly construed (note that this applies to any edits to Murder of Seth Rich, any edits to Talk:Murder of Seth Rich, and edits related in any way to Seth Rich on any page in all of Wikipedia. This restriction can be appealed in six months. In addition, StreetSign is warned that similar behavior on any other topics, including but not limited to articles related to murder and/or Presidents, will quickly result in sanctions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A permanent record of the close is available here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your AN/I post

I think you had posted an excellent defense. To improve on your post, try to add diffs like the ones I included. If you don't know what a diff is, please ask, and I will explain and show you how to do it. When you make accusations of name-calling, providing diffs is much better than requesting non-involved editors to try and read the talk page or its history looking for what you say. The same goes for the removal of your comments and closing talk sections (also known as "hatting"--using the {{hat}} template). I provided two diffs, but I know there are several more. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

On Wikipedia, it is a good idea to edit on a range of topics. This contributes to the encyclopaedia, and improves your skills as an editor. It is often easier to edit from a neutral point of view on topics that you have no strong feelings about. There are many disagreements on Wikipedia, and uninvolved editors who step in and help are great.

When you have strong feelings, it is often hard to let go. But if you keep replying, or sticking in "walls of text" people do not read your posts properly - instead they just look for ammunition to use against you.

If you are having difficulties on an article, go and edit articles on other topics for a week before coming back. During your absence from the article, you may have picked up some allies who agree with you.

It is a good idea to try to help other people. Sometimes they misunderstand and get angry (once a Jewish editor accused me of being anti-semitic because I corrected his/her formatting and repetition errors, but eventually he/she understood correctly and gave me a barnstar).-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

StreeSign: The above is excellent advice. Please read WP:Bludgeon and WP:WallofText. Advice I gave to another editor who was focused on a particular article was similar and may be useful to you: User_talk:David_Tornheim#Thank_you,_David. Look especially at items (1), (2), and (6). Your behavior and situation is slightly different than that editor's, so items (3)-(5) are probably already familiar to you. Item (6) is to watch what happens at other contentious pages without getting involved. It will help you learn what NOT to do.

One last thing: Although you did include good WP:RS, like Newsweek, CNN and Washington for some of your claims, you had originally suggested including sources that very few editors would consider reliable. Admit that you had made a mistake, you didn't know the sourcing rules well enough, and that you won't suggest those sources again, and that will probably help immensely. You could even strike the suggestions at the talk page to show you are serious. You strike using <s></s> combination. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To the above I would add the advice that you learn that not everything that is in a reliable source belongs in a Wikipedia article, and that when multiple editors question the relevance of the material, continuing to argue about the sourcing of the material is a one-way-ticket to a topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban

To nobody's surprise, you have been topic banned. Before you decide that I am the enemy, please note that I strongly recommended against blocking you from editing any Wikipedia page.

I have been editing Wikipedia for 12 years and have made 45,000 edits without a single block or ban, so I know a bit about staying out of trouble. I have also seen many editors get topic banned, and can give you some advice about it.

First, it's kind of expected that a newly topic-banned user will complain about the topic ban. And it is almost impossible to complain about a topic ban without mentioning anything about the topic you were banned from, which is a violation of the topic ban. Users who have just been topic banned often vent a little on their talk page, and usually nobody minds -- for a week or so. After that the warnings start and you have to stop complaining and move on. Please try not to bore everybody by repeating the arguments that were rejected at ANI. I know that you think they are good arguments, but nobody else does.

I have seen three common reactions to a topic ban.

Some people decide to start paying attention to the reasons why so many people independently decided that they should be topic banned or blocked and learn how to be productive editors. These are the ones who end up having their unblock requests granted six months later.
Some people decide to stand right on the line that they are not allowed to cross. This always ends badly for them. Stay far away from the topic you were banned from.
Some people learn nothing and exhibit the same behavior on a different topic. They then get blocked from editing any Wikipedia page.
Some people decide to try using another account. We are really good at catching you if you try that.

I strongly recommend the first option.

Finally, study the exact wording of your topic ban carefully:

"Because of long term, disruptive, repetitive bludgeoning of the discussion at Talk:Murder of Seth Rich, User:StreetSign is subject to an indefinite topic ban on the subject of Seth Rich, broadly construed (note that this applies to any edits to Murder of Seth Rich, any edits to Talk:Murder of Seth Rich, and edits related in any way to Seth Rich on any page in all of Wikipedia. This restriction can be appealed in six months. In addition, StreetSign is warned that similar behavior on any other topics, including but not limited to articles related to murder and/or Presidents, will quickly result in sanctions."

If you have any questions, ask the admin who imposed the topic ban on his talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Murder of Dr. Mark Hausknecht (October 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Clarityfiend was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails WP:CRIME and WP:NOTINHERITED. Media coverage ended a few days after the shooting.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Murder of Dr. Mark Hausknecht and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Murder of Dr. Mark Hausknecht, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Clarityfiend (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Murder of Dr. Mark Hausknecht

Hello, StreetSign. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Murder of Dr. Mark Hausknecht".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Dolotta (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]