User talk:BobRoberts14/Archive 1

Welcome

Hello, BobRoberts14, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Manager27 (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

June 2019

Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Gainesville, Florida, 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. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I highly doubt your claim that more than half of the population either works at or attends the school. Meters (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Gainesville, Florida, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You might want to also read WP:OR. Unless you can provide a reliable source for your claim this is not going in the article. Meters (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

And since this is the third time you have added this unsourced claim you should also read WP:EW. Meters (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The total number of students, teachers, and other faculty at UF and UF Health is 100,000, as stated in Wikipedia's University of Florida article and the Demographics section of Gainesville's article. Almost everyone in those three categories lives within Alachua County, and most live in Gainvesville. This is because almost all students live around UF campus, and faculty would have to drive for multiple hours to get to their job location if they lived further. So although the majority of Gainvesville may not work or learn at UF, about 1/3 of Alachua County does. Therefore, may I add that to the article instead? It provides important insight into the fact that Gainesville mostly revolves around the University of Florida, population and economically (not the majority, but the vast minority). BobRoberts14 (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

No. Changing your claim from "majority" to "vast minority" (whatever that is) doe snot help. If you can provide reliable sources giving the numbers of students and workers at the school (and Wikipedia is not a reliable source) that's one thing, but then claiming that "the majority", or "the vast minority" of Gainsville, or about 1/3 of the County works or attends there without sources is not acceptable. Again, read WP:OR. And I would suggest that you read WP:SYNTH too. Even providing sources for the school's population, the town's population, and the county's population and then making those statements would not be acceptable. Meters (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

BobRoberts14, You need a source. There is no original research on Wikipedia. See WP:OR. This information also does not belong in the lead if and when you get a source. Please stop vandalizing the page. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 02:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I changed the last sentence to "Gainesville is a college town, being home to the University of Florida and Santa Fe College." That is important information. They have over 70 thousand students in total. So if someone wants to dispute the fact that they have a major impact on the population, they are obviously incorrect. UF also has over 27 thousand faculty. It is most certainly a college town. BobRoberts14 (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

No one disputed the fact that the University of Florida is in Gainesville even though it wasn't sourced, so adding Santa Fe, a college with 20,000 people, is important information and should not be disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobRoberts14 (talk • contribs) 03:01, June 11, 2019 (UTC)

Yes the U of F is sourced. It is in the education section, where it belongs. There is no mention of Santa Fe College in the article, so it is unsourced. You have been told that this material does not belong in the lead. Per WP:BRD either discuss this on the article's talk page, or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand how Wikipedia works. I would suggest reading the help pages and what Meters suggested above. The lead generally does not have sources because it is a summary of the article. If you put new information in the lead then you need to cite it (and generally put that information in the body as well).

Your new edit does not make sense. You just keep stating that everyone knows this and there are countless articles. If so, then you can provide them and expand the article. I am going to revert your changes again. Please see WP:3RR. If you revert again, I will report you. I have not done so yet because I am taking the view that you are unaware of the rule. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 03:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

"Santa Fe College is a public college in Gainesville, Florida." is the first sentence of its wikipedia article. It is most certainly in Gainvesville, and it has over 20,000 students. Therefore it belongs in the lead, since UF also has over 56,000 students, meaning Gainesville is obviously a college town. Do you know anything about this city at all? BobRoberts14 (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Your recent editing history at Gainesville, Florida 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. Meters (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

All you have to do is click on Santa Fe's wikipedia article. It's in Gainesville... It has a large effect on the city, and therefore is important info. BobRoberts14 (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If there are reliable sources in the college's article you can reuse them in this article. but do not make claims about the town being college town or the majority of its residents working or attendance the school, or how big an effect the schools have on the town without sources saying exactly that. Did you read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? It's not for Wikipedia writers to say those things. We report what reliable sources say. If the schools are so important to the town then I'm sure you can find sources saying that. And at this point do not add any of this material to the article without first getting consensus for it on the article's talkpage. The addition of this material to the lead has already been challenged, so it is up to you to get consensus now. Meters (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Just look at the education section of the article. It does state that Santa Fe is in Gainesville. You are going to tell me that the article doesn't mention Santa Fe? You obviously haven't even read it, and don't know anything about Gainesville at all. The only one who needs to do research is you. I was incorrect about the majority of the population working or learning at UF. But I am definitely correct in stating that it is a College Town and that Sante Fe is in Gainesville. Ask basically anyone who lives in the city and they know about Santa Fe and all of the college students and faculty. BobRoberts14 (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

I had already added that back in, with a proper source when you wrote that. Perhaps you should read the article. Meters (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I've read the article, and saw your newest edit. Thanks for finding a source, and I'm sorry for messing things up originally. I am new to wikipedia and didn't know about the rules concerning sourcing. I just saw that "Gainesville is home to the University of Florida" wasn't sourced and assumed Santa Fe didn't need to be. Still though, I think this newest edit adds important information about the city. Much of Gainesville revolves around UF and partly Santa Fe, so I appreciate you doing the research to cite a source. BobRoberts14 (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

And yes, I did somehow miss the mention of the college the first time. The article does contain a source for U of F as the top employer. Meters (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

In the Demographics section it cites https://web.archive.org/web/20180802061109/http://www.cityofgainesville.org/Portals/0/bf/2017%20City%20of%20Gainesville%20CAFR.pdf#page=244 when it states that UF is the top employer. BobRoberts14 (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

ANI notice for Gainesville, Florida

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 20:53, 11 June 2019 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:BobRoberts14 reported by User:Meters (Result: ). Thank you. Meters (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I've closed the report for the moment; in case you haven't looked there, be advised that further edit warring will result in a block without any further warning. I strongly advise you to continue discussion or use dispute resolution. 331dot (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

another June 2019

Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Gainesville, Florida that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Meters (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I was already about to remove the comment anyways and was editing it, but there was an editing conflict so I only got to edit it later. Thanks for removing it though, since it didn't belong. BobRoberts14 (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

I replied to you at a user's talk, with a reminder about civil discourse, but I see this has already been addressed before you made that recent comment. cygnis insignis 18:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I updated my message on PopularOutcast's talk page, Cygnis insignis. Thanks for helping out. BobRoberts14 (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

No worries, it was good of you to do that. Regards, cygnis insignis 19:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

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.

- MrX 🖋 16:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

MrX is there a problem with my messages in the talk page for Donald Trump? BobRoberts14 (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Well, perhaps you should get a few more than 170 edits under your belt before you criticize the work of the 5,736 who collaborated to build the article, but that's not why I alerted you to the discretionary sanctions.- MrX 🖋 16:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

MrX So then why did you alert me? And either way, my number of edits is irrelevant if I see a problem with a page. I don't need to edit Wikipedia every day for 10 years to see something that is wrong. BobRoberts14 (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

I alerted you because you are inexperienced on Wikipedia and are participating in a topic areas in which you have to be very careful. In your three days here, you have already had issues with one of out most basic policies. You can criticize the article that us 5,736 editors worked on for years, but it's not a great way to introduce yourself to your co-editors.- MrX 🖋 16:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

MrX The article that you "5,736 editors" worked on isn't perfect, and only a biased person would say that it is. Every single article on Wikipedia can be improved, and Donald Trump's article is one of them. Instead of arguing about me criticizing it, why don't you actually respond directly to my criticisms? As I stated in the talk page, the article's sections are too long, and the lede includes unnecessary information and leaves out some important policies. BobRoberts14 (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

I didn't say it was perfect (and everyone, bar no one, is biased, by the way). I've responded numerous times to editors making your exact same declarations about the article. It's all there in the talk page archive if you care to look. I will be happy to jump back in if you make a policy based argument backed by strong evidence to support your assertions.- MrX 🖋 17:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

MrX Sounds good, thanks for telling me. I'll also make sure to read more introduction guides on Wikipedia policies, since as you said, I am new to editing and all. Hopefully after I read them I can spend some time each day editing random articles to make improvements, but currently I am not too knowledgeable since I only started three days ago. BobRoberts14 (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Bob, you're allowed to criticize articles, yes, even the Trump one, no matter if you are new or old. Of course, for the Trump one, it would be good to check if anyone's made the same arguments. Anyway, about the notice, it is to inform you to tread carefully in this topic, because if you commit offenses, you will be subjected to penalties. It does not imply any wrongdoing. starship.paint (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

You have it exactly backwards

You have it exactly backwards in Supreme Court of the United States. Violating the law means violating any law, including the Constitution. But you can violate the law without violating the Constitution. When we say an act is unlawful, we mean it violates a law passed by the legislature; when it violates the constitution, we say the act is unconstitutional. Consider the current Census case: there are two distinct arguments against adding the citizenship question. One argument is that the addition is unlawful: it violates the Administrative Procedures Act. This would not be a violation of the Constitution. A second argument is that it is unconstitutional: that it violates the provision of the Constitution that requires a total enumeration of all persons. These are two separate arguments, arguing two distinct violations. The Supreme Court was briefed on the former, not the latter. The Constitution is not the whole of the law, so while violating the Constitution is a specific case of violating the law, "violating the law" is a more general concept. While you cannot violate the Constitution without being unlawful, you certainly can be unlawful without violating the Constitution. You are just wrong here, and your edit changed the meaning of the clause (note that someone else has also reverted it now). Perhaps you want to discuss it in the Talk page next time? From the looks of your talk page, this isn't the first time you rush and run into issues. Magidin (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

And now you are saying that "technically" and executive action is a law? Care to provide a reliable citation for that? Laws are passed by legislative bodies. Rules passed by executive agencies are called "Regulations." And actions by the Executive are called "executive acts", not laws. If you are going to go by "technically", then you'll have to provide a citation. Magidin (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

An executive action is the law buddy. So saying that an executive action violates "the law" doesn't make sense. It would be like saying a school rule goes against a school rule. Executive action can violate a statute, but "the law" is not a specific term. BobRoberts14 (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts

What if an executive action when against a state law, would the Supreme Court be able to strike it down? No, because executive actions can normally override state laws. So saying that an executive action can break "the law" does not make sense. BobRoberts14 (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

You'll need a citation, given that in legal circles, there is a very clear distinction between laws (acts of the legislature) and executive orders (acts of the executive). It's fine if you want to clarify, but to claim that an executive action is "the law" is as wrong as to claim that to violate the law is to violate the constitution. As to your query, it actually depends on whether the state law encroaches on areas of federal authority, and on whether the presidential action is in furtherance of federal laws or not. Sometimes they are struck down as being outside of federal purview, sometimes they are not. Are you just talking off the cuff? Magidin (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you think you're some kind of lawyer who knows more than everyone else? "Unlawful" is not a specific term, since State and Federal laws are both "lawful". That's why saying an executive act can be struck down for being "unlawful" doesn't make any sense. If the federal government banned plastic straws, but states had laws specifically allowing plastic straws, then can the act be struck down for being "unlawful"? No, it can't, because it would overrule the state law. BobRoberts14 (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

If an executive act "violates any law" that doesn't mean it can be struck down. State law is included in "any law", and an executive act can overrule State law in most circumstances. BobRoberts14 (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

No, I'm not a lawyer, but I've been reading and following the Supreme Court and this particular page for a couple of decades. Your more recent edit is better, but your assertions so far (that violating the law is violating the constitution; that an executive order is a law; and your current obsession with state laws) are just plain contrary to everything I've read and learned over that time. If you have citations to back up your bare assertions, then please provide them; I gave you a link to a discussion that includes a description of what an executive action is. Again: the issue of state laws has to do with whether the action is within federal purview or not. Your hypothetical is now muddled because you are talking about "federal action" without clarifying if you mean federal law (a Congressional action) or a federal Executive action (again, not the same thing!). If Congress passed a law banning plastic straws, first you would have to inquire whether this is an area where Congress can legislate; if it can, then it automatically overrides and abrogates all state laws. The state laws are no longer in force, so no act or action can violate them (they effectively no longer exist). If it is an area where Congress cannot legislate, then the act of Congress is unconstitutional (violating the Enumerated Powers clause) and so the federal statute is struck down. If the president were to issue an executive order banning plastic straws, the first inquiry would be whether this action is being taken in furtherance of federal law; if it is not, then it is struck down as unlawful. If it is, then the inquiry turns on the federal law itself to see if it is constitutional. Your question, in short, starts from a false premise. It has nothing to do with whether you are contradicting state law or not. Executive action cannot override state law on its own; it has to be done in furtherance of a valid federal law. Magidin (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

But an executive order can itself become federal law, unless it is overrided by federal law. It can't just be overrided by any "law", only federal law. Or, it can be overruled by the Supreme Court. I know a statute and executive order are not the same, but an executive order can essentially be a statute, but is able to be overruled by Congress. BobRoberts14 (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

No, Executive orders can never "become federal law" on its own. You would need Congress to draft and enact a law (which, sure, could be exactly the same as the Executive order was, but would be a completely separate process), and that law would need to be signed by the President (or vetoed and the veto overriden). Federal law specifically refers to acts of Congress (though you keep trying to fold in the Constitution). No, an executive order cannot "essentially be a statute", because it is not a law because it is not passed by Congress. Congress passing a law to override executive action is not the same as Congress passing a law to change a law. Letting an Executive Action or Order stand is also not the same as passing a law to enact that action. Let me put it simply: you are just wrong here. Magidin (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Federal law does not only refer to acts past by Congress. What if an executive agency enacts a new policy, and someone violates it? They are violating federal law. Executive actions are federal law, but Congress can always override them. I get that you think you're always right, but you aren't. BobRoberts14 (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Rules (not "policies") enacted by federal agencies are called "regulations", not "laws". Regulations are passed in support of federal laws (acts of Congress); the violations are to the laws that empower those regulations. The regulations themselves are "pursuant to federal law", not federal law themselves. Executive orders and actions are not federal law. I get that you have only been here for a couple days, and I get that you don't actually know much about this subject despite your strident pontification (as evidence by your multiple basic errors so far), but you are wrong here. Learn to live with it. Magidin (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Magidin Rules enacted by a federal agency aren't laws, but they can have the force of a law. Saying "well technically" isn't going to help. An executive act is basically a law in every way but technicality. I understand that you think you are a legal expert because you edit Wikipedia every day, but you aren't. BobRoberts14 (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts

"The force of law"≠"law". "Technically" is what you said, not I" "since technically an executive action is 'law'" is what you wrote in your edit summary. I only quoted you saying it. So it's rather rich that you say "Saying 'well technically' isn't going to help", given that is exactly what you said. So, if that is not going to help, then how come it apparently helps you so much? No, executive actions are not "basically a law". Perhaps you might want to drop that shovel, instead of continuing to dig? No, I'm not a legal expert, but clearly I know a more than you do on the subject. What are your credentials here? Magidin (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that I was originally incorrect in calling executive actions "law", so I'm sorry for using that as a justification. Still though, you don't need to act like you know far more than anyone else on the subject, since all I was incorrect about was the exact wording to describe something. I just thought two words were synonyms, even though they are not. That does not mean I am much less knowledgeable than you, since I know plenty of Supreme Court cases, justices, their confirmations, etc. You still probably know more though :) BobRoberts14 (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

June 2019

Your recent editing history at Supreme Court of the United States 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.
Wait until a consensus is developed on the Talk page before you edit this paragraph further. General Ization ^Talk 19:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, if I edit something that people disagree on, I will wait for consensus before continuing. BobRoberts14 (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Your recent editing history at Same-sex marriage 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.
This makes at least your third edit warring warning in three days. You do not seem to understand that you cannot make multiple reverts. I strongly suggest you stop reverting and seek consensus for your changes on the respective talk pages. - MrX 🖋 00:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

MrX I already have looked for consensus, and most people agreed that those words should be removed from the article. You were the one reverting edits that were meant to stay. BobRoberts14 (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

You didn't look hard enough. It took me 5 seconds to find this, and there have been other discussions about this material. - MrX 🖋 00:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Their claim that same-sex couples have children who are "better off" is not accurate, and not sourced well enough. Their source is a small sample size of specifically picked individuals in a single country, and does not represent all of the other studies that have found that same-sex couples have children that are just as well off as opposite-sex ones. Having two mothers would lower the average family's household income, since women make less than men on average, and having two fathers would result in you not getting as much emotional attention, since fathers are normally less compassionate than mothers. That's why their claim needs to be further sourced. Bob Roberts 01:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Some friendly advice

Slow down...discuss content not editors...stay focused right here on your talk page...learn how the community operates before dancing the tango, or you will surely get blocked. It's not unusual for new editors to jump right into the deep end before they realize there's an undertow. If you need help, I'm happy to answer any questions you have. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Atsme When was I discussing editors? Also, thanks for offering your help, as I am obviously brand new (three days old) to Wikipedia and trying to learn all about how things work. Bob Roberts 01:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

For starters this edit is about the editor's POV, and content is by-catch. Do you know how to use diffs? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I did figure out how to do that :) Bob Roberts 01:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Good. May I suggest wading in the shallow end before diving off the high dive? IOW, you have jumped right into editing some of the project's most controversial articles. What other interests or hobbies do you have besides societal issues/cultures/politics (if you don't mind my asking)? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I do understand that I am super inexperienced and immediately started editing controversial articles, but they have helped me learn a ton about the site, and in the end I normally helped improve them. At the start, I made some innaccurate edits and didn't source correctly, but after reviewing and speaking with other editors I corrected my mistakes. Also, I chose to edit those articles because I ended up reading stuff on them, and I know a lot about politics (I just didn't cite sources correctly). I'm also interested in Math and Science, to name two major topics. Bob Roberts 01:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

You have already accumulated quite a few warnings and stop hands, and experience tells me that because you are editing topics where WP:DS have been imposed, including AP2, BLPs, LGBT, etc. where there is little to no leniency - well...you're walking a tightwire. It doesn't matter where you carry on a discussion about any topic under DS - it can be a user's TP - so keep that in mind. That's why I suggested slowing down a bit, and maybe start editing a topic where you can get some hands-on experience and learn a little about the community first. You can still participate in the AfD, RfC, and visit the various noticeboards, like WP:BLPN, WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN - all are good places to learn. What sciences attract your interest? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I get what you mean: edit articles that are not as contentious/controversial before moving my way up to the big boys. I can definitely do that. Also, I am interested in Physics the most, since I took an AP Physics 2 class this year when I was in 8th grade. Bob Roberts 02:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

There you go - be a Wikipedia:WikiGnome for a while. See what you can find that fits your knowledge level in math/physics/science. Read a few of our WP:FA and WP:GA on those topics so you'll have a good idea of what kind of work gets promoted. There is no deadline on WP - take your time. We have editors who have practically grown up here writing WP articles, doing exactly what I just suggested to you. It's late where I am, so I'm calling it a night. Happy editing!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Atsme I'll make sure to check it out, and thanks for the advice :) Bob Roberts 02:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I second Atsme's advice. ~Awilley (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

Thank you for making a report about 2600:1702:2340:9470:5035:7312:706e:a981 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

MJL They literally posted " When you create the article related to trump`s personal life it should include the various dysfunctional relationships he`s been in including the improper sexual behavior and sexual assault allegations against him and the 13 year old girl." How is that not vandalism? Bob Roberts 04:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

[Thank you for the ping] that's more specifically a BLP violation (not just vandalism). Separately, you were engaged in a content dispute with that editor, and you never disclosed that fact in your report. Finally, the most important thing you didn't include was a diff of the vandalism. Saying something vague like "vandalized x page" doesn't help administrators as much as "Person z did this vandalism [diff]." –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to file a report on WP:AN/I after discussing it with the user in question. (Non-administrator comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

MJL I was never engaged in anything with "the editor". The only edit of his that I read was the one I reported... I still don't understand why that edit isn't vandalism, since he obviously did it as a "joke", and it was completely false (there are no sexual assault allegations between Trump and 13 year old girls). Bob Roberts 04:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Why would I discuss this with the user? They are certainly just some kid joking around for fun... Bob Roberts 04:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

From IP editor's contributions: [1] [2]. Also, WP:Warning's are required for action in most cases. Unless a person is an obvious WP:LTA or a WP:SOCK, they have to be notified that their behavior is in violation of our policies. That's the standard process at least. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for notifying me. Bob Roberts 04:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It's no problem! Thank you for listening to me in good stride. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Personal life of Donald Trump (June 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Personal life of Donald Trump and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Personal life of Donald Trump, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, BobRoberts14! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, I'll make sure to do that :) Bob Roberts 07:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Some frank advice on policy here.

@BobRoberts14:, please don't mind my intrusion, but I have noticed that you have been quite active at Wikipedia in the 4 days that your account has been active. While we greatly appreciate your enthusiasm in this project, there are several long standing policies which you seem to not know about.

First, please do not delete threads off of talk pages, as you did here [3]. If you want to, you may transfer the text to the talk page archive, but please do not simply delete threads. If you want to learn more about how to use talk pages, these two articles may be of good use to you: WP:TALKPAGE and WP:TALK.

Second, there is a very lengthy article on the appropriate use of grammar, punctuation and the like which is found here. There is a sub-section on it which deals with an edit you did to Marco Rubio here which in some instances violates the MoS. To learn more about this, please see WP:JOBTITLES. Some of the changes you made to Marco Rubio were appropriate, and others were not.

Third, Musdan77 is a very well-established editor. You are not. Before you say that "All of the edits that Musdan reverted were good, and he did not even give a reason as to why he reverted them. This guy should not have pending changed reviewer rights", consider that as he has been here far longer than you, he may know considerably more than you about policies and guidelines that editors here adhere to. While that does not mean that long-time editors are perfect and never make mistakes, (which they do sometimes), you have to understand that you are new here and likely do not understand the way things are done here nearly as well as others.

Fourth, I see that in the 4 days you have been here, you have been involved in 3 edit wars. I assume that you don't need me to tell you that is an invitation to get blocked.

Mgasparin (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's a tip to avoid edit wars. If someone reverts you, start discussing on the talk page instead of reverting them. starship.paint (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice starhip.paint, I'm already using it, since something has occurred that I will discuss on a talk page instead of starting an edit war. Also, how many people do you think have to agree, and what percentage, for their to be consensus? Bob Roberts 06:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Theoretically, WP:CONSENSUS isn't determined by votes, you should read about it there. starship.paint (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I will read that, thanks for telling me. Bob Roberts 08:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Eyer had made the exact same edits I made before. That's why I reverted Musdan's edits. Eyer has also been editing for about ten years, same with Musdan. I get that I am new, but he was abusing his privileges and reverting 5+ other edits from people whose edits were cleared. My edits were allowed to go through, as were Eyer's, and he reverted all of them. @Mgasparin if you want to actually help on that talk page you mentioned, then archive the discussion. Bob Roberts 18:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am a professional copy editor, but I am a novice editor here at Wikipedia. Eyer (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Your edits still seemed more accurate than Musdan's Eyer. Bob Roberts 21:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert, please read

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 09:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller Can you tell me specifically what this is about, and what I did wrong? Bob Roberts 10:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

As it says, this doesn't imply there are any issues with your contributions to date. I always think that anyone who has the American politics DS should have the BLP one as well, that's all. ~Just follow our guidelines and policies and don't edit war and you'll be fine. Doug Weller talk —Preceding undated comment added 11:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Gainesville, Florida, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Do not simply change your comments after others have already responded to them. That can leave the incorrect impression that people responded to your changed text rather than to the original text. See WP:REDACT for how to change your posts if it is necessary to do so. Meters (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

No, my edit did not change the main idea of my comment, it just made it more civil. I had previously said that " you need to wake up and realize you're not helping anyone by..." and that was unnecessary and not civil. Do not edit my comments to the way you want them. Bob Roberts 21:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, it's generally considered best practice to just strike comments out using <s></s> or <del></del>. I don't know what the exact situation here, but that's just the accepted practice. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Please try to avoid personalizing content disputes, as you did here and here. You have made your point on this subject twice now. Do not make it a third time, or I will report you for harassment. R2 (bleep) 22:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, the only person harassing anyone is you Ahrtoodeetoo. My point was that you were being rude in the Donald Trump talk page, and have been very rude many times before. My example of you saying "Go fuck off for 24 hours, you sorry excuse of an admin," was to show that you have said rude things in the past. Bob Roberts 23:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey Bob...

I don't know why exactly, but I've kept your page in my watchlist. I see this stuff you're doing is escalating rather quickly. If I may offer some advice from one newbie to another, it's a bad idea to get so involved in Talk:Donald Trump right out from the gate. I appreciate your commitment, but do know that is one of the most contentious talk pages in all of Wikipedia. Maybe come back to some of your proposals after a few months getting used to editing first? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I know that it is a very controversial page to be editing on, but it's helped me learn a lot about the wiki, and there hasn't been much negative response to what I've said. I will still read through different user guides to learn more, but for now I don't see any reason to stop editing the talk page there, as long as I stay civil (which I am trying to do). Bob Roberts 03:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of mid-to-high level Trump staffers with much less attention (like Justin R. Clark). We could use your insight in those types of pages more so than the experienced editors than the experienced editors you've been interacting with so far do. (talk page watcher) (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Also... I really don't think you are having a positive effect over there (see This thread). It's not exactly what I would call the right track to be on. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but I am still learning many things, since I am brand new. Bob Roberts 03:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Conversation is pretty much moot tbh per below. Sorry, Bob. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for what? Bob Roberts 03:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

About the ban. (Also, I appreciate pings btw just to get a notification I need to reply) If you want a good list of articles about politics from abroad, then I recommend participating in WikiProject Politics and asking there. We're all happy help you make the most out of this ban by learning about the politics of other countries and cultures ^{I find I enjoy contributing to these types of articles because I am not as attached to the outcome}. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned from post-1932 politics for a period of 2 weeks. You may not edit any articles or talk pages related to American politics, but you are welcome to contribute elsewhere.

You have been sanctioned for continued disruptive behavior despite multiple warnings

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) 03:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Please use this time to gain some editing experience in less contentious areas and to familiarize yourself with our policies. ~Awilley (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: I will definitely use this time to learn more about different policies, but either way, there are many problems with Donald Trump, mainly it being too long in certain areas, so someone needs to talk about it. I've only been editing Wikipedia for 5 days, so I still have much to learn. Also, can you tell me exactly what my "disruptive behavior" was? Bob Roberts 03:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

In the past 5 days about 15 different editors have come to this talk page trying to get you to slow down, calm down, stop violating specific policies, etc. If you want to know what the disruptive behavior was all you need to do is look up. ~Awilley (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Only three of them were about the article Donald Trump @Awilley:. The others were about unrelated topics. Why not block me completely instead of just topic blocking me? Bob Roberts 03:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: As to the comment you just deleted, no, but I'm just wondering why you didn't do that instead. I agree that I was arguing too much in certain articles, but of course I don't want to be blocked :) Bob Roberts 03:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Multiple reasons. One of them being that I want to see if you are able to channel your energy less disruptively in less contentious areas. ~Awilley (talk) 03:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: thanks for giving me the chance to help work on other articles, and hopefully when I am more experienced I can come back to the political ones. I'll try to read more policy articles and work on less contentious subjects. Bob Roberts 03:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's one to add to your reading list. WP:BLUDGEON It's not policy, but it's relevant. ~Awilley (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I read the article. Bob Roberts 05:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Don't change other editors' posts. That was already under the "Support" heading so it's obvious what the editor intended. If the editor in question chooses to make his or her response that way it's up to them. And it's up to them add the "Support" if they think it is needed. It's not your place to change it for them. Meters (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It was under the support section, so I just added the word support... Bob Roberts 04:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't. If you had read the links provided to you by me and at least two other editors you would have known that that was unacceptable. As I told you on Talk:Gainesville, Florida: This smacks of WP:IDHT We're not pointing you to all of these links for fun. We expect you to read them and learn to edit properly by following the instructions on those pages. Tolerance for a new editor will only go so far. If you continue to ignore all of the advice editors are trying to give you this will become a WP:CIR issue for which you may end up blocked. Meters (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't pretend to know what I have read. I read most of the articles linked, but I did not think that I was interfering with the meaning of that editor's message, so I did not think it broke any rules. Bob Roberts 05:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for abortion

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 abortion. 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.  Bishonen | talk 09:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC).

I haven't even been editing that article for days. Why tell me now? I've gotten these many times before, there's nothing more you need to tell me. Bob Roberts 09:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bishonen: unless I have done something wrong, this notice is pointless... Bob Roberts 09:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Abortion is an extremely controversial subject, and I believe anybody who introduces the word "murder" at Late termination of pregnancy (without any source other than "I've spoken with people who have this opinion" on the talkpage) is well served by being told about the discretionary sanctions for abortion. I told you today because I saw it today; admins are volunteers, they aren't on 24-hour watch. Are you saying you've been alerted to the abortion discretionary sanctions "many times before"? Under what account(s), please? Bishonen | talk 15:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC).

No, I meant that I already know their are discretionary sanctions about it at this point, since I have been told before, and about other subjects. When I made those edits I most likely didn't know, but those were days ago. Bob Roberts 15:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The alert is a requirement before the sanctions can be applied to an editor. They normally have to be renewed every year. Doug Weller talk 20:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Final warning

I applaud your efforts to protect inquisitive teenagers who want to learn about "Pornhub" without viewing explicit images, but you're doing the "bludgeoning" thing again. It isn't anybody's job to convince you that our "Not Censored" policy applies to the Pornhub article. It's your job to read, understand, and follow the policy.

Let me be frank. Here at Wikipedia we have little interest in enabling editors who run around manically trying to make controversial encyclopedia articles conform to their own worldview, and who then argue endlessly on the talk pages when their efforts are opposed. We are interested in people who are willing to take the time to deeply research a subject and then write neutral, nuanced, high quality articles from a balanced point of view. One of my jobs as an administrator is to protect the limited time of this second type of editor, so they don't have to waste their time engaging in unending circular arguments with the first type of editor. What I'm saying is that if you continue the way you are now you will quickly find yourself blocked from editing alltogether. ~Awilley (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: I get that you think I am being to confrontational on that page, but I'm just stating the facts about the site. It's porn, and sometimes even child porn. The article is already "written like an advertisement", so why attract even more perverts to see the home page? It's just not necessary, considering how much controversy surrounds a site like PornHub. Also, if some kid who doesn't know what the heck the site is clicks on the image, that's not something they should be seeing. How do you expect me to react when I remove an inappropriate image from the site and someone says that it is necessary to be on the article? Bob Roberts 21:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Bob, that is excellent advice. As a new user here, we realize that there is a lot for you to learn and a steep learning curve ahead of you. We've all "been there and done that," and we've all made mistakes.

The trick for you to learn is to immediately back off when you get any pushback from other editors, especially when they revert any of your edits. A limited amount of discussion on your part is allowed, but start with the attitude that other editors know more about (1) the subject, (2) the history of the article, (3) and editing policies here. Don't keep arguing.

Also, make your discussions more of a "teach me how to deal with this," rather than a confrontational approach. Ask, rather than accuse. If you follow this advice and the good advice given you by Awilley, you may just survive without getting blocked. I hope so, because you seem like a bright young man who can do some good here.

BTW, several years ago I ran into an Administrator (like Awilley) who was only 13 years old. They totally fooled me, as they avoided controversy, handed out excellent advice and support, and did the duties of an Admin in a very mature manner. I say this to show that age isn't always a help or hindrance here. I've also helped to block a Nobel Prize winner who was up in years who thought his status and knowledge should give him some special treatment and rights to control information in physics articles. Well, he wouldn't accept anyone's advice, and he ended up getting blocked. In your position, you should just have a default attitude of accepting and following the advice you are given. Good luck. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I get that I'm 14, but age does not have much to do with it. I definitely know a lot more about science, math, and politics than my peers (my age, not yours), but I do get that I try to win arguments more than others. The main thing is, I am new to wikipedia, so I don't know about these policies that I assume don't exist. For example, an image of PornHub's main screen to me would not be necessary, since I had no idea there was a policy allowing it. Also, I am not going to back off if someone reverts "any of my edits", that would not make sense. If some person has no idea what they are doing, or they are vandalizing, of course I am going to argue about them reverting my edits. Bob Roberts 21:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying your first impulse should be to think that they do know what they are doing. If it's clearly vandalism, then by all means go ahead and fix it. No one will object to you fixing obvious vandalism. If they object, then back off and calmly discuss the matter.

As far as the PornHub image, the proper way to deal with that is to (1) back off, and then if you still think something needs to be done, seek advice. Then you could also start an WP:RFC where other editors will weigh in. Their decision must be accepted, even if you don't like it. If their decision goes against you, that's the time to drop the stick and walk away from that issue. None of us wins every confrontation or dispute, and while some of them are inevitably necessary, we shouldn't get bogged down in them. We should seek to avoid them as much as possible. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

But if my arguments on talk pages are only causing trouble for you guys, I'll just stick to reading the policies and making less controversial edits, such as copy edits. Bob Roberts 21:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say you can't discuss, just be more careful and back off sooner. We know that you don't know all the policies, guidelines, and unwritten codes of action. The first way you will often discover them is when you get pushback from other editors. See that as an opportunity to learn from them, rather than fighting them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Bob, I've closed the discussion at Talk:Pornhub - I would kindly suggest you take Awilleys and BullRangifers advice and step away from the article,
  

What websites host isn't our problem and certainly ins't a reason to exclude a screenshot, 99.9% of the world knows what Pornhub is and the 1% that doesn't should immediately guess just by the name alone,

As an Encyclopedia we have articles on almost anything and everything and we cater to a wide audience and our mission here is to basically educate the world on almost everything,

Ofcourse your concerns are valid no one wants their child looking at essentially a porno picture however it's the parents responsibility to monitor their childs internet usage not ours, Like I said above we're only here to educate the world and give as much knowledge as we can to people,

As people have already pointed out you need to read WP:NOTCENSORED and accept this policy, If you cannot or will not accept it then by best advice would be to simply log out of here and find another hobby as we all have to accept policies here we don't like (myself, Awilley and BullRangifer all included),

I would suggest putting this all in the past and focus on editing and improving articles as there's so much more to this website then one silly picture :),

If you have any problems or need help just come to my talkpage and I'll be happy to help,

Thanks and Happy editing :), –Davey2010^Talk 22:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Nah I understand, thanks a lot for being respectful :) Bob Roberts 23:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, I will just be using this account from here on out, since the name doesn't have a number. I'll follow the sanctions that tell me not to edit any post-1932 political articles, and I'll mainly stick to copy editing for some time. Thanks for the help @Awilley: :) LilBillWilliams (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll also take the take time to read all the necessary guidelines and what not, so I don't just jump right into issues without knowing the rules. LilBillWilliams (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

So this will be your new account? Just want to be sure. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: yes it will, but I will follow the sanctions that tell me not to edit post-1932 US politics for about two weeks. LilBillWilliams 00:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Very good. I suggest that you archive (or hat, which is easier) this whole page and then only use the other account. You can leave a redirect to that account, or leave a note pointing to it. If you'd like me to hat it and point to the other account, I could do it and then you can see if that's a satisfactory way to do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, this really needs to be said. Although some of the above may not be pleasant reading, I want to reassure you that we are your friends. We really want you to succeed here. Feel free to approach any of us for help and guidance. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Well thanks a lot for the help, I'll try to do a lot of good work for wikipedia from here on out :). Also, can you archive this page for me? I haven't learned how to do that yet. LilBillWilliams 00:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done - All now at User talk:BobRoberts14/Archive 1 :), Happy editing!, –Davey2010^Talk 00:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Personal life of Donald Trump concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Personal life of Donald Trump, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Personal life of Donald Trump

Hello, BobRoberts14. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Personal life of Donald Trump".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)