I previously edited under the name BattleshipGray. I had trouble accessing that account, so I started editing under a new user name - GlassBones. GlassBones ( talk) 09:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to
Council for National Policy. While
objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not
a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you.
Grayfell (
talk)
03:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
If I hear any more of you following them around to revert I'll block your account. ~ Awilley ( talk) 04:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
On 15 November 2019, Awilley explicitly told this editor that he would be blocked if he continued to hound me to pages and revert me. Since then, the editor has:
And it's not like this is a highly prolific editor. The editor obviously has some sort of obsession with me, and previous warnings are clearly not working. I cannot edit this encyclopedia when there are accounts who are hounding me across it, reverting me and seeking to exploit my voluntary editing restrictions. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
GlassBones, your sweeping and profound assumptions of bad faith towards everybody you disagree with, admin or not, are toxic and bad for the atmosphere here. Examples: [14] (your very first edit from this account), [15], [16], [17]. Please read WP:BATTLE. On another note, please remember to log in to post. I suppose you don't want everybody to know your IP — it's personal information.
Incidentally, I discovered purely by accident that you created this account because you had trouble accessing your old account. [18] Would you care to make a note about your previous account on your (currently redlinked) userpage? It would be helpful to yourself as well as others. Then people would be able to see, for example, that you have already been told about the discretionary sanctions for American politics and biographies of living people, as well as about the 3RR rule, and they won't bother you with fresh alerts here on this page. Bishonen | talk 21:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC).
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate
your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to
Mason Rudolph (American football), it appears that you have added
original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses
combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the
tutorial on citing sources. Thank you.
Eagles
24/7
(C)
21:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Cleveland Browns, you may be
blocked from editing.
Eagles
24/7
(C)
21:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of Huxley's work as well. I'm sorry you seemed to gotten off to a rocky start on Wikipedia. May I suggest playing the
The Wikipedia Adventure? It'll help get you more familiar with the basics of editing (not that you need it entirely, but it helps). Let me know if you ever need help with anything.
–
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖
00:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
The NCAA does not recognize football championships at the FBS level, though they do publish the annual selections of various ("major") selectors. Your recent edits have been modified per above. UW Dawgs ( talk) 17:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
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.
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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.
Doug Weller talk 07:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Copying these from your old account so it's clear when you received these alerts. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
If you continue to make edits such as you did today at One America News Network and MSNBC you may find yourself blocked or topic banned. I'm saying this after reviewing again your edits under your old account. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
GlassBones, I urge you to mind the various warnings you seem to attract with your edits on politics-related topics. They are disruptive, they waste other editors' time and attention, and they do not help improve the articles with well-sourced consensus content. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I told you, this wouldn't be easy. So they are saying that since the WaPo and NYT and more left, that makes MSNBC not left? I don't see how you can win at this. Just add a simple statement to state the obvious is a major undertaking. -- rogerd ( talk) 22:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I just cleaned up your last two talk entries, you used [[User|ValarianB]], when you should have used {{u|ValarianB}}, which is a link to the {{ user link}} template. Personally, I prefer the {{ ping}} template, which will send a notification back to the user. Using the [[User|rogerd]], like you just did, doesn't do what you think it does. I just links to user but puts a different name on the link (see piped link) If you have any questions, please ask me. -- rogerd ( talk) 22:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
MSNBC; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. 331dot ( talk) 14:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
It's possible that we might print a rumour that had had a lot of publicity in the mainstream media, but editors should never add unsourced material as you did to Marc Dann. You deleted it but it remained in the edit history for anyone to see. Now any Administrator can do something called revision/delete, which means only Administrators can see it. But even that isn't sufficient in the case of an edit such as yours, but I'm one of the few Admins that can suppress an edit so that even other Admins can't see it. WP:BLP is a policy we take extremely seriously, and I'm disappointed if you didn't read it after I gave you a standard alert on the sanctions in that area. WP:VERIFY is also core policy, and I see that your latest edit [21] is unsourced. Hopefully you can fix that. If you don't know how to cite sources, read Help:Referencing for beginners. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
|
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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
Mr. Peanut, did not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our
policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about
contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. There has been consensus against using past tense, as this reflects PR fictions.
ViperSnake151
Talk
21:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans Stop posting this on my Talk page. I am not edit-warring or violating three-revert or anything else. Enough with the harassment. GlassBones ( talk) 23:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
You need to stop that or you'll get indefinitely blocked again. YoPienso ( talk) 19:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are
restricted to one revert per 24 hours ontopic banned from articles/subjects related to modern American politics.
You have been sanctioned for tendentious editing and edit warring.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ~ Awilley ( talk) 19:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
( edit conflict)@ Awilley: Could you please revert his latest edit at that article? YoPienso ( talk) 20:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@GlassBones, please note that I am converting your 1RR restriction into a simple topic ban. In looking at your latest dispute with Snoogans I couldn't see that you have made any effort to rein in the WP:Battleground behavior and axe-grinding that led to the revert restriction. In fact diffs like this [24] [25] [26] and this [27] suggest that you're actively trying to reignite old disputes. Please take some time to read what a WP:Topic ban means and realize that, like the 1RR restriction, this applies to all edits related to American politics anywhere on the project, not just articles specifically about American politics. The duration of the topic ban will be 1 year beginning today. ~ Awilley ( talk) 22:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at
Clinton Body Count, you may be
blocked from editing. That was clearly inappropriate. Please don’t attempt to introduce false balance from a
WP:PROFRINGE point of view. That conspiracy theory has been thoroughly debunked, not “partially”.
Symmachus Auxiliarus (
talk)
01:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. This is in reference to
[28]
O3000 (
talk)
13:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
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:GlassBones reported by User:MrX (Result: ). Thank you. -
Mr
X 🖋
21:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 48 hours for violating Awilley's 1RR sanction on American politics articles. If you wish to appeal this block, you can do so at WP:AE — write your appeal below and request to have it moved to that page. Bishonen | talk 21:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC).
![]() |
The Surreal Barnstar |
For not appealing your recent block, I hereby award you this barnstar for avoiding that drama and taking a step back instead. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 23:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC) |
Your addition to
Ray Brown (Negro leagues pitcher) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be
blocked from editing. See
Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.
Eagles
24/7
(C)
22:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I just noticed a comment string on Awilley's Talk page. What is happening to SashiRolls, and as described by Levivich, seems very similar to what has happened to me and how I now have a 1-year ban from post-1932 US politics. Simply stated, I had the temerity to cross Snooganssnoogans. (I pinged Snoog - I'm not going to talk about another editor behind his back.) I admit I should have known better than challenge him, as I was warned by more than editor that if I challenged the great and powerful Snoog I would be severely punished. There is no editor I am aware of with more of a battleground mentality than Snooganssnoogans. (Don't take my word for it - the history of Snoog's behavior can easily be pieced together from Wiki sources. Further, just look at his User page - he delights in having a battleground mentality.) Snoog routinely reverts other editors' edits with no explanation whatsoever given; in the rare event that there is any explanation it is often something flippant like "nonsense", "conspiracy" or "faux controversy", perhaps with an insult tossed in as well. When asked to discuss edits and Undos on the article Talk page, in a reasonable manner, he often refuses. If an editor challenges Snoog regarding an Undo, Snoog then accuses the editor of edit-warring, stating that since Snoog edited the article first, Snoog can never be edit-warring, arguing that only the more recent editor can be the culprit. Of course, this argument makes little sense, as any US post-1932 article is likely to have been edited at some point by Snoog, as he is an extremely prolific full-time editor in that topic area. What his argument, which is supported by his buddies and seemingly some admins, effectually does is to make Snoog the owner of any article he has ever touched, and any editor who has a differing POV can never have his or her edits remain despite relevant content with appropriate cites to reliable sources. If the edit-warring argument is not enough, Snoog will accuse the editor of stalking if the editor goes to any site previous touched by Snoog. Of course, Snoog also throws in plenty of bullying and harassment for good measure if the other editor persists in trying to insert edits into any articles for which Snoog claims ownership (even though it would be next to impossible for anyone to have the time to undo even a fraction of Snoog's edits). Snoog will also play the snowflake victim card, running to an Admin to claim edit-warring, stalking, harassment, etc. if he is challenged in any way for his Undos or if he perceives another editor as a threat to his desire to edit all articles as he pleases. When that happens, his buddies are quick to pile on to get the offending editor blocked or banned. (Snoog has no fear of this process, despite his own lengthy history of repeated violations of Wiki policies regarding Battleground, BRD, edit-warring, bullying, harassment, etc., as the worst that ever happens to Snoog is a short-term block or voluntary sanctions.) Once banned, the editor is left with a difficult choice - appeal to the community (which obviously includes Snoog and his pals) or appeal to the Admin who put the ban in place to begin with. The end result is that the other editor will get frustrated and finally give up trying to ever edit Wikipedia, or be sent to the gulags never to be heard from again, and all post-1932 US politics Wikipedia articles reflect only the biased POV of Snoog and his cohorts. GlassBones ( talk) 22:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Your latest edits also appear to violate your topic ban. I have raised this at WP:AE. Guy ( help!) 20:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
RexxS (
talk)
23:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)RexxS - How am I supposed to appeal the block if I can't edit anything? And, I get that AWilley explained my topic ban, but I really didn't think my edits to the Fox News article were a violation. If there any way the indefinite block can be just for post-1932 US political articles? GlassBones ( talk) 17:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead.The argument that 'your edits to Fox News weren't a violation' has already been lost, so your best bet is to face up to that, accept it and move on.
I previously edited under the name BattleshipGray. I had trouble accessing that account, so I started editing under a new user name - GlassBones. GlassBones ( talk) 09:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to
Council for National Policy. While
objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not
a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you.
Grayfell (
talk)
03:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
If I hear any more of you following them around to revert I'll block your account. ~ Awilley ( talk) 04:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
On 15 November 2019, Awilley explicitly told this editor that he would be blocked if he continued to hound me to pages and revert me. Since then, the editor has:
And it's not like this is a highly prolific editor. The editor obviously has some sort of obsession with me, and previous warnings are clearly not working. I cannot edit this encyclopedia when there are accounts who are hounding me across it, reverting me and seeking to exploit my voluntary editing restrictions. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
GlassBones, your sweeping and profound assumptions of bad faith towards everybody you disagree with, admin or not, are toxic and bad for the atmosphere here. Examples: [14] (your very first edit from this account), [15], [16], [17]. Please read WP:BATTLE. On another note, please remember to log in to post. I suppose you don't want everybody to know your IP — it's personal information.
Incidentally, I discovered purely by accident that you created this account because you had trouble accessing your old account. [18] Would you care to make a note about your previous account on your (currently redlinked) userpage? It would be helpful to yourself as well as others. Then people would be able to see, for example, that you have already been told about the discretionary sanctions for American politics and biographies of living people, as well as about the 3RR rule, and they won't bother you with fresh alerts here on this page. Bishonen | talk 21:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC).
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate
your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to
Mason Rudolph (American football), it appears that you have added
original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses
combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the
tutorial on citing sources. Thank you.
Eagles
24/7
(C)
21:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Cleveland Browns, you may be
blocked from editing.
Eagles
24/7
(C)
21:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of Huxley's work as well. I'm sorry you seemed to gotten off to a rocky start on Wikipedia. May I suggest playing the
The Wikipedia Adventure? It'll help get you more familiar with the basics of editing (not that you need it entirely, but it helps). Let me know if you ever need help with anything.
–
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖
00:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
The NCAA does not recognize football championships at the FBS level, though they do publish the annual selections of various ("major") selectors. Your recent edits have been modified per above. UW Dawgs ( talk) 17:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
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.
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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.
Doug Weller talk 07:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Copying these from your old account so it's clear when you received these alerts. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
If you continue to make edits such as you did today at One America News Network and MSNBC you may find yourself blocked or topic banned. I'm saying this after reviewing again your edits under your old account. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
GlassBones, I urge you to mind the various warnings you seem to attract with your edits on politics-related topics. They are disruptive, they waste other editors' time and attention, and they do not help improve the articles with well-sourced consensus content. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I told you, this wouldn't be easy. So they are saying that since the WaPo and NYT and more left, that makes MSNBC not left? I don't see how you can win at this. Just add a simple statement to state the obvious is a major undertaking. -- rogerd ( talk) 22:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I just cleaned up your last two talk entries, you used [[User|ValarianB]], when you should have used {{u|ValarianB}}, which is a link to the {{ user link}} template. Personally, I prefer the {{ ping}} template, which will send a notification back to the user. Using the [[User|rogerd]], like you just did, doesn't do what you think it does. I just links to user but puts a different name on the link (see piped link) If you have any questions, please ask me. -- rogerd ( talk) 22:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
MSNBC; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. 331dot ( talk) 14:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
It's possible that we might print a rumour that had had a lot of publicity in the mainstream media, but editors should never add unsourced material as you did to Marc Dann. You deleted it but it remained in the edit history for anyone to see. Now any Administrator can do something called revision/delete, which means only Administrators can see it. But even that isn't sufficient in the case of an edit such as yours, but I'm one of the few Admins that can suppress an edit so that even other Admins can't see it. WP:BLP is a policy we take extremely seriously, and I'm disappointed if you didn't read it after I gave you a standard alert on the sanctions in that area. WP:VERIFY is also core policy, and I see that your latest edit [21] is unsourced. Hopefully you can fix that. If you don't know how to cite sources, read Help:Referencing for beginners. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
|
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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
Mr. Peanut, did not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our
policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about
contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. There has been consensus against using past tense, as this reflects PR fictions.
ViperSnake151
Talk
21:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans Stop posting this on my Talk page. I am not edit-warring or violating three-revert or anything else. Enough with the harassment. GlassBones ( talk) 23:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
You need to stop that or you'll get indefinitely blocked again. YoPienso ( talk) 19:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are
restricted to one revert per 24 hours ontopic banned from articles/subjects related to modern American politics.
You have been sanctioned for tendentious editing and edit warring.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ~ Awilley ( talk) 19:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
( edit conflict)@ Awilley: Could you please revert his latest edit at that article? YoPienso ( talk) 20:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@GlassBones, please note that I am converting your 1RR restriction into a simple topic ban. In looking at your latest dispute with Snoogans I couldn't see that you have made any effort to rein in the WP:Battleground behavior and axe-grinding that led to the revert restriction. In fact diffs like this [24] [25] [26] and this [27] suggest that you're actively trying to reignite old disputes. Please take some time to read what a WP:Topic ban means and realize that, like the 1RR restriction, this applies to all edits related to American politics anywhere on the project, not just articles specifically about American politics. The duration of the topic ban will be 1 year beginning today. ~ Awilley ( talk) 22:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at
Clinton Body Count, you may be
blocked from editing. That was clearly inappropriate. Please don’t attempt to introduce false balance from a
WP:PROFRINGE point of view. That conspiracy theory has been thoroughly debunked, not “partially”.
Symmachus Auxiliarus (
talk)
01:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. This is in reference to
[28]
O3000 (
talk)
13:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
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:GlassBones reported by User:MrX (Result: ). Thank you. -
Mr
X 🖋
21:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 48 hours for violating Awilley's 1RR sanction on American politics articles. If you wish to appeal this block, you can do so at WP:AE — write your appeal below and request to have it moved to that page. Bishonen | talk 21:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC).
![]() |
The Surreal Barnstar |
For not appealing your recent block, I hereby award you this barnstar for avoiding that drama and taking a step back instead. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 23:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC) |
Your addition to
Ray Brown (Negro leagues pitcher) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be
blocked from editing. See
Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.
Eagles
24/7
(C)
22:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I just noticed a comment string on Awilley's Talk page. What is happening to SashiRolls, and as described by Levivich, seems very similar to what has happened to me and how I now have a 1-year ban from post-1932 US politics. Simply stated, I had the temerity to cross Snooganssnoogans. (I pinged Snoog - I'm not going to talk about another editor behind his back.) I admit I should have known better than challenge him, as I was warned by more than editor that if I challenged the great and powerful Snoog I would be severely punished. There is no editor I am aware of with more of a battleground mentality than Snooganssnoogans. (Don't take my word for it - the history of Snoog's behavior can easily be pieced together from Wiki sources. Further, just look at his User page - he delights in having a battleground mentality.) Snoog routinely reverts other editors' edits with no explanation whatsoever given; in the rare event that there is any explanation it is often something flippant like "nonsense", "conspiracy" or "faux controversy", perhaps with an insult tossed in as well. When asked to discuss edits and Undos on the article Talk page, in a reasonable manner, he often refuses. If an editor challenges Snoog regarding an Undo, Snoog then accuses the editor of edit-warring, stating that since Snoog edited the article first, Snoog can never be edit-warring, arguing that only the more recent editor can be the culprit. Of course, this argument makes little sense, as any US post-1932 article is likely to have been edited at some point by Snoog, as he is an extremely prolific full-time editor in that topic area. What his argument, which is supported by his buddies and seemingly some admins, effectually does is to make Snoog the owner of any article he has ever touched, and any editor who has a differing POV can never have his or her edits remain despite relevant content with appropriate cites to reliable sources. If the edit-warring argument is not enough, Snoog will accuse the editor of stalking if the editor goes to any site previous touched by Snoog. Of course, Snoog also throws in plenty of bullying and harassment for good measure if the other editor persists in trying to insert edits into any articles for which Snoog claims ownership (even though it would be next to impossible for anyone to have the time to undo even a fraction of Snoog's edits). Snoog will also play the snowflake victim card, running to an Admin to claim edit-warring, stalking, harassment, etc. if he is challenged in any way for his Undos or if he perceives another editor as a threat to his desire to edit all articles as he pleases. When that happens, his buddies are quick to pile on to get the offending editor blocked or banned. (Snoog has no fear of this process, despite his own lengthy history of repeated violations of Wiki policies regarding Battleground, BRD, edit-warring, bullying, harassment, etc., as the worst that ever happens to Snoog is a short-term block or voluntary sanctions.) Once banned, the editor is left with a difficult choice - appeal to the community (which obviously includes Snoog and his pals) or appeal to the Admin who put the ban in place to begin with. The end result is that the other editor will get frustrated and finally give up trying to ever edit Wikipedia, or be sent to the gulags never to be heard from again, and all post-1932 US politics Wikipedia articles reflect only the biased POV of Snoog and his cohorts. GlassBones ( talk) 22:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Your latest edits also appear to violate your topic ban. I have raised this at WP:AE. Guy ( help!) 20:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
RexxS (
talk)
23:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)RexxS - How am I supposed to appeal the block if I can't edit anything? And, I get that AWilley explained my topic ban, but I really didn't think my edits to the Fox News article were a violation. If there any way the indefinite block can be just for post-1932 US political articles? GlassBones ( talk) 17:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead.The argument that 'your edits to Fox News weren't a violation' has already been lost, so your best bet is to face up to that, accept it and move on.