User talk:Frotz/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Frotz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Standard ArbCom notice to editors editing in the the topic area of gun ownership and control
Frotz, below you will find a standard message about editing in this topic area. It contains a notice from ArbCom about a discretionary sanctions alert concerning gun control that is in effect.
You were notified of this once before, in this edit in 2018. You were not very active at that time, and it was archived automatically two months later, so it's not clear you ever saw the notice. Since it's been over a year, it's fair to send you a reminder anyway, even if you did see it. Apologies if you already were aware of this, but your recent multiple reverts at National Rifle Association made me think that you had perhaps forgotten. So, here it is again:
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 governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. 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.
Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Replied also to your page... I'm not clear on why you believe this to be relevant to the question of whether the National Rifle Association is conservative, liberal, neither, or something else. -- Frotz(talk) 06:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- That is because it is completely irrelevant to that question. Did you read the notice and follow the links? It's important that you do. Once you have read it and understood it, feel free to delete it; it won't be reposted for another year, at least. Whether you read it or not, you are assumed to have understood it and are subject to the same sanctions in effect by ArbCom on articles on this topic as any other editor is. If you have a specific question about sanctions, I will try to answer it. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 08:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Looking again at the old post to my talk page, I see that it didn't have anything to do with the book article deletion. Looking again at the ArbCom discussion, it's clear that Template:Uw-1rr is still in effect, which means that if multiple people pile on to add or re-add unsourced material, then that still counts as edit-warring. -- Frotz(talk) 08:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- As I tried to explain to you elsewhere, Template:Uw-1rr is a template, so it cannot be "in effect". You mean, I presume, WP:1RR on the WP:Edit warring policy page. And yes, per WP:ARBGC, it is in effect for all editors editing at the article. And to be clear: only one editor has violated 1RR in the last few days at the article, and that person would be you. See Law of holes. Mathglot (talk) 08:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- See your talk page. I'd rather not have the same discussion spread across two pages. -- Frotz(talk) 08:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- As I tried to explain to you elsewhere, Template:Uw-1rr is a template, so it cannot be "in effect". You mean, I presume, WP:1RR on the WP:Edit warring policy page. And yes, per WP:ARBGC, it is in effect for all editors editing at the article. And to be clear: only one editor has violated 1RR in the last few days at the article, and that person would be you. See Law of holes. Mathglot (talk) 08:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Looking again at the old post to my talk page, I see that it didn't have anything to do with the book article deletion. Looking again at the ArbCom discussion, it's clear that Template:Uw-1rr is still in effect, which means that if multiple people pile on to add or re-add unsourced material, then that still counts as edit-warring. -- Frotz(talk) 08:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- That is because it is completely irrelevant to that question. Did you read the notice and follow the links? It's important that you do. Once you have read it and understood it, feel free to delete it; it won't be reposted for another year, at least. Whether you read it or not, you are assumed to have understood it and are subject to the same sanctions in effect by ArbCom on articles on this topic as any other editor is. If you have a specific question about sanctions, I will try to answer it. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 08:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Replied also to your page... I'm not clear on why you believe this to be relevant to the question of whether the National Rifle Association is conservative, liberal, neither, or something else. -- Frotz(talk) 06:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- One more thing we agree on: not spreading discussions across two pages. In my view, this has two components: a content dispute concerning appropriateness of "conservatism" (which should be at the NRA talk page) and a user behavior issue concerning your multiple reverts at NRA, which should be here, not at my Talk page. Having said that, the behavior part of the discussion should not be in this section, but in the previous one, because this is merely a boilerplate statement of an ArbCom sanction in effect. Any further discussion of the NRA article content issue really has no business being either in this section, or on this page, but since you keep making comments here, it's the only place I can respond to them. We should really stop this discussion, and take it up in the right venue, because it just makes it that much harder to find anything and respond to it, if it isn't being discussed where it ought to. Can we close this discussion now, and go elsewhere? The only thing below this, in this section, should be questions or comments on ArbCom's discretionary sanctions about firearm topics. Mathglot (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
 | 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 |
Important 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 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.
Doug Weller talk 17:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
File:Midwakh2.JPG listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Midwakh2.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
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 |
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)