User talk:Galathadael
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.
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- You may not use article talk pages to make accusations of wrongdoing against named living people. Your claim is unsourced and unsupported. Do not reinsert it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Obama Administration" is not a person. Go read up on Stefan Halper. Even though Wikipedia has a totally whitewashed explanation of who he is, it explains who sent him. This isn't a college campus. You can't just start screaming when people start saying things you don't like.Galathadael (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Arbitration Enforcement
[edit]There is a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Galathadael. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
3RR
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) 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 BRD 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.
April 2019
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Sandstein 13:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)- It seems quite odd to me that the report for the long term editor who should know better will be closed with no action, and a report about a brand new editor who may not know the policies yet ends with an indefinite block. Nice work Sandstein. It is not your place to decide what type of editors Wikipedia needs. Sorry Galathadael - you got chewed up in the machine - I hope you learned your lesson. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello Galathadael, you can still appeal your block. I would advise you make a firm commitment to follow Wikipedia policy, and review policies such as WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:V, and other pages such as WP:RS, WP:RSP, WP:AGF, WP:RGW and WP:VNT starship.paint ~ KO 01:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)