User talk:Thomas Paine1776

Welcome

Hello, Thomas Paine1776, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Thanks

Appreciate the Barnstar!Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHICAGO

You have been not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO, but you have made at least 25 edits to Chicago. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as such at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, if you are a member, be aware of Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3 and be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta, Georgia

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For a great deal of helpful cleanups and edits to geography articles including Atlanta, Georgia among others. Todd Vierling (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch!!!Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit sources

Thank you for sourcing the article :) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ThomasPaine1776 is awarded this barnstar for fully sourcing the Detroit article - WhisperToMe (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar!Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thomas Paine1776's Day!

User:Thomas Paine1776 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Thomas Paine1776's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Thomas Paine1776!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First edit of 2011

Random comment: I am a member of the central time zone, where 2011 has just begun about an hour ago. I was curious, so I looked at Wikipedia's recent changes to see the first edit of the year, and it turns out this edit by you is the first one! It appears from your editing interests that you are also a member of the central time zone, so congratulations on bringing the award home. Happy new year! Hope it's a great one!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, nice homepage. That was eastern time though. Happy New Year. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph requests

Hi! Are you willing to take photographs of Metro Detroit for Wikipedia? There are some photo requests if you are interested WhisperToMe (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder

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.

Doug Weller talk 11:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Thomas Paine1776. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

input on Draft:Richard Walter Thomas

There seems to be some questions that perhaps a few people could chime in on. I'm approaching senior members of various projects related to the subject as I can find to see if they might be interested in reviewing the draft and comments on the talk page. Smkolins (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Thomas Paine1776. 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]

The reminder

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.

wumbolo ^^^ 19:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following me to an article you've never edited and deleting sourced text claiming it was unsourced

You clearly read the post on my talk page by an editor with a poor grasp of English who doesn't understand that leads don't need sources (you must know that with all your editing experience. In fact if you read the article history you would have seen my edit summary which clearly stated that it was sourced. Nevertheless you deleted the text/reverted my reinstatement with an edit summary saying "unsourced".

The editor's reasoning was that there was no "conflation" because "on the country, he can be strongly associate to some historical figures individualy". Did you read that? Because if he means what he wrote, multiple figures, that's what's meant by conflation.

It's reasonable to follow an editor's contributions if there's evidence that there are problems with that editor, it's not acceptable to follow someone because you are having a problem with them and it's not acceptable to remove sourced information from the lead calling it unsourced. I hope this won't happen again. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The editor listed a good source and seemed concerned about neutrality of the paragraph on the Nimrod article, that was the point there. I was aware of the article, and aware that David Livingstone has equated Nimrod with Gilgamesh. This should be prominent in the Nimrod aritcle. It was not about your edits, the topic caught my interest. The paragraph makes an unsourced opinion that is overly conclusory so that taints the paragraphs nuetrality, my use of unsourced there. It uses terms like "failed", "more likely," "fictional" and it seems reasonable for editors to challenge it until it becomes nuetral. In this way, I agree with the editor that the paragraph in question should be removed unless it becomes neutral. The lead make should not unnecessary judgements on the body of the article, for that reason the paragraph taints the neutrality of the

article as the editor appears to assert.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Hi, Thomas Paine. I have blocked you for a month, because I'm extremely concerned about your editing since my September warning.[1] You don't seem to have taken it seriously at all; you simply said "thanks for your concern" and went on as before, with hardly ever an edit summary, and never (that I have been able to discover — maybe there are a few examples to the contrary) adding a source for your changes. Instead, you often leave the source that was there already, while changing the text to contradict what the source says. That practice, without an edit summary, is downright deceptive. I'll give a few examples — six of them, out of many many more.

Here are a couple of typical edits from October:

[2]: You changed sourced content to contradict the source.

[3]: you removed content without explanation.

Here a couple from November:

[4]: You removed well-sourced critical content without explanation.

[5]: Unexplained controversial change of sourced content.

And here from December:

[6] Unexplained removal of sourced content.

[7] Unexplained controversial change.

I've picked these pretty much at random, as so many of your edits are like that. Just above, DougWeller mentions this edit of yours in January, where you claim a sourced paragraph is unsourced and delete it, apparently for no other purpose than to stalk and disoblige DougW. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. I would advise you to try to convince the reviewing admin that you will from now on:

Always use explanatory, meaningful edit summaries.
Never again make changes that contradict the source appended to the text.
Always add a reliable source of your own for any change you make that is controversial, or that in a serious way changes the meaning of the article text.

It would probably be helpful if you were also able to explain to the reviewing admin why you have ignored so many warnings, and why you have never, as far as I can see, discussed anything on an article talkpage. Bishonen | talk 19:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

You should probably recuse yourself. My edits are reasonable edits, you seem to be unnecessarily harsh. Updating an outdated sentence or making it more general but true statement is not deceptive. Making a business article more about the present business is quite reasonable. Using the word Hebrew in a dead sea scroll article is reasonable and scholarly and more pricise, as the particulars of the Qumran sect are not fully known. Removing an inflammatory media opinion, ad hominem or hyperbole from an a article about an EPA official is reasonable. Capitalization of BC is a standard format, so it makes no sense to have a sentence on not capitalizing the b, again a reasonable edit. Its not appropriate for Wikipedia administers to assert themselves into content disputes or make up rules. I endeavor to abide by Wikipedia guidelines. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've said my say, TP, and have given you a detailed block rationale. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. If you do that, it will bring an uninvolved admin to this page to review the block. Bishonen | talk 21:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Unused buildings in Kentucky listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Unused buildings in Kentucky. Since you had some involvement with the Unused buildings in Kentucky redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:DetroitCensusPop

Template:DetroitCensusPop has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:AtlantaCensusPop

Template:AtlantaCensusPop has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:DetroitMetroCensusPop

Template:DetroitMetroCensusPop has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Religious landmarks in metropolitan Detroit

I notice Template:Religious landmarks in metropolitan Detroit has gotten kind of dense. Perhaps breaking it up into different templates would help?

Making a separate template for Protestant and Orthodox Christianity (as the Catholic Church has its own template) and having Jewish and Muslim sites at Template:Religion in Metro Detroit
Having one template for religious sites in the Detroit, Hamtramck, and Highland Park city limits, and another for sites in other parts of Metro Detroit

(both of these can be done at once!) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 US Banknote Contest

US Banknote Contest

November-December 2019

There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons.

In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.

If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)[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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheddar Man

Hello, you may be interested in a discussion taking place on Talk: Cheddar Man, regarding Talk:Cheddar_Man#Brace_2018_vs_Other_stances and Talk:Cheddar_Man#File:Human_Skin_Colour_Distribution_26,000_BC_-_1500_AD.gif. All the best, Vaurnheart (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Atheneum Suite Hotel Detroit for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Atheneum Suite Hotel Detroit is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheneum Suite Hotel Detroit until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. // Timothy :: talk 00:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Elon Musk

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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~ HAL333 16:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

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 edits about, and articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed. 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.

Alexbrn (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries, controversial changes

Thomas Paine1776, I came to give you a templated notice about using edit summaries, especially when you are making changes that are likely to be controversial. I see now that you were blocked in 2019 by Bishonen for making unsourced, unexplained, controversial changes. That pattern appears to be continuing at pages like Peter A. McCullough and Luc Montagnier. If you are unsure what edit summaries should include or about how to write them, I would be happy to help. Firefangledfeathers 16:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since my one-month block (almost three years), but at the time, I did lay out the problems with your editing in considerable detail,[8] hoping that it would be helpful to you in improving it. In short, I told you it was disruptive to hardly ever provide an edit summary, or a source for your changes, instead often leaving the source that was there already, while changing the text to contradict what the source says. I see it hasn't helped much; you still hardly use edit summaries, and your edits to Peter A. McCullough, which Firefangledfeathers mentions above, unfortunately conform to your old pattern of changing content to no longer accord with the sources. This re a topic that you have received a discretionary sanctions alert for: Covid 19. If you do something like that again, you risk being topic banned from Covid 19, broadly construed. And please start using edit summaries and sourcing your edits altogether, instead of misleadingly changing content to no longer accord with the sources, or you will eventually run into a siteban. Bishonen | tålk 17:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Courtesy ping. This editor has not heeded your advice and continued with their disruptive edits... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

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-1992 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. Bishonen | tålk 17:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

December 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Peter A. McCullough, you may be blocked from editing. Deliberately altering article text in an attempt to remove language which disagrees with your personal point of view is disruptive. And, you shouldn't edit-war in any case.. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:45, 16 December 2021 (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:Thomas_Paine1776 reported by User:RandomCanadian (Result: ). Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning COVID-19, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned because you have continued to do exactly that which I warned you about above: tendentious, opinionated changes of content so that it no longer accords with the sources, while providing no edit summaries.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | tålk 08:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unambiguous violation of the above. If you persist, you're likely to be reported by myself or somebody else. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for topic ban violation

Did you not understand what "topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning COVID-19, broadly construed" means? I did urge you to read WP:TBAN for information. It doesn't look like you did. You have been blocked for a week for violating your topic ban per RandomCanadian's post above. Further violations will lead to longer blocks. I note also that you again ignored my request for edit summaries, or indeed for explanations in any form. Bishonen | tålk 16:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Trump

Howdy. Will you please read the message at the top of the editing page of Donald Trump. You HAVE TO get a consensus for such changes or additions to the lead. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It's been over 2 years, since you last responded to anyone on your talkpage. Suggest you end the silent treatment. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits at Donald Trump

Hi Thomas Paine1776. I came here to let you know that Donald Trump is under a 24-hour-BRD restriction and that your second batch of edits today violated that restriction. It's already been reverted, but please be cautious next time.

While here, I noticed your TBAN was applied due to "tendentious, opinionated changes of content so that it no longer accords with the sources, while providing no edit summaries". This neatly describes your recent work at the Trump article. As you know, recent American politics articles are also covered by discretionary sanctions, so please exercise care moving forward. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has gone a bit beyond that. This user is under a covid-19 topic ban, and their latest edit made changes to Trump's (mis)handling of the covid-19 response. They also have not responded to any user talk page discussion in over 3 years, according to contribution logs. @Bishonen:, I am about halfway through a AE filing, should I do that or is the above enough to just take action now? Zaathras (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Zaathras, I'll take care of it shortly. Watch this space. Bishonen | tålk 20:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Blocked

Thomas Paine1776, you have been blocked indefinitely for again violating your Covid-19 topic ban, here, and for again[9][10][11] making tendentious unsourced changes without an edit summary.[12] The lead summarizes the body; you made opinionated changes directly in the lead, so that it no longer corresponded to the sourced content in the body. This time I have blocked you indefinitely. You can request unblock by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 20:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Publicly traded companies in Illinois

Template:Publicly traded companies in Illinois has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Detroit top city employers

Template:Detroit top city employers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Publicly traded companies in the Detroit metropolitan area

Template:Publicly traded companies in the Detroit metropolitan area has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Urban development has been nominated for merging

Category:Urban development has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Estopedist1 (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]