User talk:Display name 99: Difference between revisions

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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.

Template:Z33

@Display name 99: Hi Display name 99, I'm MagicatthemovieS. You might remember me - you passed my nomination of the Gospel of Jesus' Wife as a good article. Since we work well together, I was wondering f you might like to check out two articles which I recently nominated to reach good article status - Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento and Tawana Brawley rape allegations. Let me know if you are interested in either article or both of them.

Thanks, ~ MagicatthemovieS

Undid your reversion because it appears to have been performed in error—the passage in question concerns Andrew Jackson, not John C. Calhoun.

I draw your attention to this request.

Would you please consider going to Talk:Abigail Spanberger#As a courtesy to other contributors, could we discuss complicated or controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries... to discuss your edits? Geo Swan (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote about the contributions of contributors too young to legally release their contribution, in Legal incompetency, due to age. Short version - when we suspect someone is a minor I advocate letting them continue to edit, so long as they edit as competently as adults.

You are an adult now, so the issue is moot for you now... Geo Swan (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, what is your point? Please explain how this has anything to do with anything. Display name 99 (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Display_name_99#Initial_history describes how your initial contribution was as a minor. It seems to be written in anticipation of future criticism. I went on record as supporting editing of individuals who edit competently, even if there are reasons to speculate they were under the age of consent. I thought that was relevant to User:Display_name_99#Initial_history. Geo Swan (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, this obviously isn't true. It asks people to remember when checking my block log. Obviously, the fact that I got myself into trouble eight years ago while editing as a minor has no bearing on what I do now. Please stop wasting my time. Display name 99 (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Donald Trump. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or may 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 noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaheel Riens, I missed the part where I was supposed to give a damn. Display name 99 (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the John C. Breckinridge article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 16, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 16, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you've presumably noticed, I've indefinitely blocked you for this comment, which I assume you realize was beyond the pale by any standard. As I've said at ANI, and made clear in the block log as well, this is explicitly indefinite in the sense of "for an indefinite period" not "for ever", and as soon as you can convince anyone that tempers have cooled down I give leave to anyone to lift this block.

To be clear, I am not blocking you for your political views. Wikipedia is a broad church, and support for Donald Trump is certainly not a fringe view (as 70-ish million voters testify). Indeed, even if it were a fringe view it would still not be block-worthy; we have numerous editors who are open supporters of terrorist groups, violent nationalist/separatist movements, groups which are widely considered racist, left- and right-wing extremism, and so on. What differs here is that these editors appreciate that they're sharing the site with people who don't share their opinions.

In my view, the comment linked above, and the other comments mentioned at the ANI thread, cross over a line. In my view they're potentially intimidating people who don't share your views from participating in discussions, and what's more important you were aware that they were potentially intimidating people who don't share your views from participating in discussions, and as such are unacceptable.

These are heated times, and given your history I have no reason to doubt that you're here in good faith and that recent events have been a one-off episode stemming from frustration rather than malice on your part. While I can't speak for the other participants in that thread, I certainly don't want to lose you provided you're willing to tone it down and respect other people's views even when you disagree with them. ‑ Iridescent 05:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]