User talk:Dontmakemetypepasswordagain

Welcome!

A cup of warm tea to welcome you!

Hello, Dontmakemetypepasswordagain, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you are enjoying editing and want to continue. Some useful pages to visit are:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
• The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun game-like tour to help get you oriented within Wikipedia)

You can sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you need any help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. We're so glad you're here! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You sure know a lot of Wiki lingo for someone who just joined Wikipedia

Wow, I'm impressed by the place that you have learned to use Wiki slang like POV pushing. Are you sure you haven't used Wikipedia before a month ago?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand the source or nature of your concern Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

In your edit summary you wrote "Rm entire section of POV-pushing OR". It's very unusual for someone who has only made 15 edits on Wikipedia to write something like that.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

And what is your concern? Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining how you have come to be so fluent in Wiki speak in such a short time editing? I'm very surprised.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you focus your attention on article edits, the appropriateness thereof, and the policies and arguments that are offered to support them. Beyond that, I'm afraid I still don't understand your concern. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Notaforum

My comments were properly directed toward improving the article. Sorry you just don't get it.You seem to be very versed in jargon for a "new" editor. Did you use a diffrent ID previously? Edison (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I have posted you on NPOV Noticeboard and Sockpuppet Investigations

I have posted you on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations. Just informing you. You may also meet the definition of a single purpose accountMonopoly31121993 (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you think I am editing in any improper way? Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you posted a silly complaint on my talk page. Edison (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Silly is in the eye of the beholder. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

And you continually delete proper material unilaterally without discussion. -- Veggies (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Veggies, there is nothing valid about trying to connect the Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks to the New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany, given that there is no sourced discussion about the PRDP in the German sex assaults article, and no sourced discussion about the German sex assaults in the PRDP—in short, there is no sourced connection whatsoever between the two, nobody in the newspapers or any other RS has been comparing the two. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany, you may be blocked from editing. Stop removing contentious material before the discussion has panned out. One anonymous editor is not "consensus". Veggies (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany. Veggies (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion has "panned out": there is no sourcing, you refuse to provide any sourcing, any nobody but you thinks this should be included. On both the substantive content policies and the procedural collaboration policies, you are in the wrong and the !votes are against you. You're engaging in WP:tendentious editing. PS, I am not the least bit fazed by wrongful invocation of scary templates. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. We are having a discussion—which YOU started—on WP:NORN. Quit unilaterally deciding things on your own and ignoring other people's input. If you delete the link once more, we'll have to take things to WP:ANI Veggies (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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. Thank you. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Drmies (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

So far the other participants in this edit war have only used the Talk page to avoid and refuse to discuss content policies while persistently removing very well-sourced, very well-written, very neutral and encyclopedic content without any effort to justify the removals via actual content policies. There's even a user there claiming that a sham consensus can override "5 Pillars" policies, which is absurd and quite obviously wrong.

So I fail to see how blocking me is going to improve things, and I have no clue why an editor would have taken this to a punitive noticeboard instead of attempting dispute resolution, or—God forbid—normal talk page discussion of article prose and applicable content policies.

When the block expires, I will continue attempting to get anybody at all to state actual policy justifications for removing any of this material. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Eh, very well written? Like "yuge asshole"? If I had seen that earlier I would have blocked you for longer. Sorry, I see, on that talk page, a substantive discussion of the issues, and there is no way an admin is going to see that that discussion is going your way. You, on the other hand, seem to argue that something should be included because it is verified--well, unverified things can't be in articles, but neither can irrelevant things, and that talk page consensus indicates that that's what is going on here. So, blocking you did improve things: it stopped an edit war, at least for now. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Heavens to Betsy, @Drmies: A bit of harmless hidden-text mockery of Donald Trump that nobody else noticed warrants harsh punitive measures? And you say you're sure you saw substantive discussion correctly concluding that the disputed matters were not relevant? Well then! Shame on me for attempting to add irrelevant matter to an article, eh? I can't even imagine what possessed me to engage in such a queer form of disruption. And a block most noble as punishment!

Not all I deserve, to be sure, but enough. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you 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.

Here's me vigorously LOL'ing at the idea that I need to be warned about content policies. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 May 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)