User talk:Historical Mensch

Ari Fleischer

Hello Historical Mensch,

I realize you're new to the project and are probably still learning your way around. Welcome!

But in your first two edits, you have reverted the same material twice. Not the best start. Please review Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to properly source the material you'd like to add to the Fleischer article. Also, I caution you against repeatedly reverting other editors. It is called edit-warring and is considered disruptive. And even though you are new, it could result in getting you blocked from editing. So please review WP:3RR. Also, please see WP:BLP, so that you'll understand that everything in articles about living persons needs to be properly sourced. If you have any questions or comments, leave them here and I'll try to respond. X4n6 (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Account & IP edit-warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 your 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. X4n6 (talk) 07:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. X4n6 (talk) 08:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, please don't edit war, and do cite your sources whenever possible. El_C 00:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ami (magazine)

Hi, Historcial Mensch, I was wondering, since you worked on the article, if this is the logo of the magazine. If yes, I could add it to the infobox. Thankyou for your time. :) Lotje (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Hello, I'm Sir Joseph. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Mishpacha have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Historical Mensch. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Ami (magazine), you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Your adding unsourced promotional claims to the Ami article suggests at least the possibility that you have something to gain by promoting it. Nat Gertler (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ami (magazine). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:COI editing

If you do not cease your COI editing, you will very likely be WP:Blocked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reported at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Historical Mensch and the Ami (magazine) and Mishpacha articles. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Mishpacha.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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 notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Ami (magazine), you may be blocked from editing. Melcous (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Ami (magazine). Melcous (talk) 05:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Mishpacha. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reblocked you for block evasion. The time on your block has been set to expire roughly 48 hours from now. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Historical Mensch (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #19872 was submitted on Nov 27, 2017 21:03:51. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historical Mensch. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. GAB^gab 04:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]