User talk:Gatedais

Gatedais, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Gatedais! 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 Keelan (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Disruption and ownership behavior at Cuba article

I previously notified you (here, here, and here; perma) about Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, seeking consensus via discussion, the WP:BRD guideline, unexplained reversions, and edit warring. Your response here was to remove all of these notices. Your response at the article was to revert, and carry on with another set of unexplained unsourced additions, and removal of sourced content. This behavior, plus the lack of comment at the article Talk page, looks like ownership behavior and failure to respect Wikipedia's core content policies regarding content verifiability and collaboration with other editors.

Please stop your disruption at the article, ensure that all your added content is appropriately cited, and explain your edits in the edit summary and on the Talk page when requested. Please engage with other editors to achieve consensus at the article rather than just ignoring everything and pushing forward unilaterally, reverting when anything gets in your way. This is not the way at Wikipedia. If you continue on this path, I or another editor may request administrative action seeking to ensure that you comply with Wikipedia content and behavioral policies. Continuing disruption may result in restrictions on your editing privileges. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name-calling at the article talk page, won't help you. I suggest you now get busy finding references for the material you have added, and stop reverting to force your changes into the article without them. That is considered edit-warring. Please either revert your last change to the article if you don't wish to source anything, or add citations to what you've already inserted, as I asked you to in the #Verfiability challenge on the article Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wikipedia accounts

Have you used other accounts in the past for editing Wikipedia? There is another userid, whose edits have a very similar pattern to yours. Wikipedia has a strict policy on multiple user accounts, and while there are some valid reasons to do so, other accounts *must* be disclosed here on your User talk page. Please list any alternate accounts you have used in the past, or are using now. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Open a SPI case then 🤷‍♂️ Gatedais (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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-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.

Doug Weller talk 18:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to African Americans have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 05:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Doug Weller talk 10:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]