User talk:Plebian-scribe

Plebian-scribe, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Plebian-scribe! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

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.

FDW777 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Hello, I'm FDW777. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club‎, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Proud Boys. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will 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. - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Project Veritas. — Newslinger talk 13:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Since the edit has been reverted (challenged), please discuss it on the article's Talk page, instead of reinstating. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Plebian-scribe. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 13:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are topic-banned from everything related to post-1992 American politics

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This topic ban 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. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Hello, I'm HMSLavender. I noticed that in this edit to United Citizens' Alarm, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Red Army Faction, you may be blocked from editing. FDW777 (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you please explain why my edit was considered disruptive editing or how it violated Revolutionary Cells neutral point of view policy? The Red Army faction is a registered terrorist organization and the article on wikipedia itself lists out its terrorist activities. I believed that the term "militant group" itself violated the neutral point of view policy in an attempt to make the group seem less violent that it actually was.

What's a "registered terrorist organization"? Also see MOS:TERRORIST. FDW777 (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The United States of America, West Germany, and other west european countries considered the Red Army Faction a terrorist organization due to their use of terrorist tactics to further their ideological goals including bombings, kidnappings, and assassinations. Being associated with them was a crime in West Germany since it was considered supporting a terrorist group. The article on the Red Army Faction goes into detail and specifically uses the word "terrorist" to describe them. The very next sentence after the one I edited says as much and gives 4 sources that say as much. Can you please explain how I was violating the neutral point of view policy because I was trying to correct what I saw as a violation against this by listed a terrorist group as simply a 'militant organization'

I guess you couldn't be bothered to read MOS:TERRORIST that I linked to in my edit summary or my post above? Your disruptive editing has already seen you topic-banned from post-1992 US politics, I suggest you treat that as a wake-up call. FDW777 (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it and I stated why I think I was justified in my edit and how I in now way violated it, especially when the article itself includes cited sources for the claim that it was indeed a terrorist organization. You continuing to point to link to the same thing without explaining how I violated it isnt answering my question of how I violated any rules.

If you had read and understood MOS:TERRORIST I would have thought it very obvious why the unattributed use of "terrorist" is a violation. FDW777 (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isnt "unattributed" as I have already said, the very next sentence in the article I edited says its considered a terrorist group by multiple countries and gives 4 sources for it. Do you need me to link to the article itself for you to see?

It was unattributed. FDW777 (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time, the next sentence claims that it was a terrorist group and includes four sources to back up this claim. Did you want me to just copy and paste those same three sources behind my edit to call them a terrorist group?

Yes, the next sentence attributes the claim as MOS:TERRORIST says to do. Your addition did not. This isn't difficult to understand. FDW777 (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I will make the edit again, but this time I will include the same four sources behind my edit of including 'terrorist' which will then be perfectly inline with the rules.

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Johann Rall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trenton. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Nicholas Herkimer. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will 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. Please stop linking United States per MOS:OVERLINKING. This is obviously a well-known country. Furthermore, you are not explaining your change in the edit summary, and keep making the change without discussing. MB 14:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that I created the infobox for that page only to have someone come in and remove the hyper links to the countries under the 'Allegiance' category.

It has been explained several times that there is a guideline on linking (MOS:OVERLINKING) that explains common words and terms should not be linked. It specifically mentions major countries that most readers know. You keep ignoring this and reinserting the link without acknowledging the guideline or discussion why you don't think it applies to this article. That is edit warring, which is not how WP works. Please stop this behavior. It makes no difference that you created the infobox. MB 02:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it hasnt been explained several times. You just re-edit all of my edits. Please stop this petty editing.

It was explained right above twice in this section: Please stop linking United States per MOS:OVERLINKING. This is obviously a well-known country and in every edit summary. You need to look closer at the information being provided to you. MB 03:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'United States' or 'America' is only ever written and hyperlinked ONCE in the Nicholas Herkimer page. Why dont you chill out and actually make sure there are multiple mentions and overlinking on a page when its only done once before you get all anal-retentive about the rules. Please stop this petty edit war when you arent even following the rules yourself.

Apparently, you are looking at the wrong section. Try MOS:OL where it explains what NOT to link. You should also be indenting on TPs and signing every response. MB 04:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. FDW777 (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violation of a topic ban as discussed at arbitration enforcement, you have been blocked from editing for a period of one week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

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. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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."

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]