User talk:Vaalpak

May 2018

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Joseph diGenova, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Your recent editing history 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Joseph diGenova is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAP2

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.

EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Peter Strzok

Your recent editing history 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Stop edit-warring your fringe nonsense into the article and mass-removing reliably sourced text. If you believe your Strzok page edits have merit, persuade in any of the talk page discussions about your edits and persuade your fellow editors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I have not edit-warred, broken any 1RR rules, or added "fringe nonsense". Nothing is fringe that I have contributed to articles, it is all reliably sourced information. Vaalpak (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Please follow WP:BRD and discuss your edits on the article's talk page rather than edit-war. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Challenged material

I am challenging the removal of the last two paragraphs of the lead. Please do not remove this material again unless you have obtained consensus on the article talk page.- MrX 🖋 22:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, got it. Vaalpak (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)