User talk:The 13th 4postle

Welcome!

Hello, The 13th 4postle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Classic/Ethereum debate

Hi, there is a debate going on over at the dispute resolution board relating to Ethereum Classic's treatment on the Ethereum page. Thought you might want to contribute, so I am giving a heads up. dispute resolution noticeboard . You feedback is welcome. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:The 13th 4postle - Why are you complicating the effort to moderate the dispute about Ethereum by inserting yourself as a "third party"? There were already more than two parties to the controversy. You are not really acting neutrally, but as a party, but by adding an extra role, you are just complicating the moderation. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon Sorry, I'm not familiar with the process. Just wanted to put forth my two cents.

Conflict of interest in Wikpedia

Hi The 13th 4postle . I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing. Your edits to date are on a bit of a run about Ethereum Classic. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, The 13th 4postle. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

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

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with Ethereum Classic dev teams, directly or through a third party (e.g. a PR agency or the like), or are pursuing the post bounty? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 articles about 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.

– Muboshgu (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3O decline

I have declined your request at WP:3O on the grounds that there are already more than two editors involved in the dispute. 3O is for providing just that, a third opinion, when two editors have become deadlocked. You are welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about that. I just get upset that it’s so damn hard to edit Wikipedia sometimes because some people want to delay and obfuscate instead of adding information and editing it for accuracy. The 13th 4postle (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Michael Flynn. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 21:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see that you have disregarded my advice. You really must stop posting comments like this[1] on article talk pages. It inflames the discussion and derails the dispute resolution process. If you continue to make such comments, you will probably be sanctioned. - MrX 🖋 12:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. I'll stop. The 13th 4postle (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DS violation

Hi The 13th 4postle. This edit violates 1RR, not to mention the advice in WP:DETAG. Please self-revert or I will request sanctions at WP:AE, as well as for your defiance of wikipedia policies that I've already highlighted on the talk page. - MrX 🖋 11:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed what it said so it is fully verifiable. I;m acting in good faith to try and update the article with new information and I am discussing such changes in the talk page. I disagree vehemently that I am violating wikipedia policies. If you feel you need to pursue sanctions, you can go ahead. I would love to get more attention to the Talk page and the article. The 13th 4postle (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert 1 Revert 2. I will go ahead and bring this to AE since you seem to think that the rules don't apply to you. - MrX 🖋 12:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrX, despite what I interpreted as unambiguous language in the 1RR edit notice, those two diffs don't constitute a violation based on recent discussions at various talk pages. To be a violation the reverts need to be to the same material. Generic reverts to other material don't count. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ernie I think you're confusing 1RR with enforcement tolerance by one particular admin (or perhaps more than one admin). Wise admins look at the surrounding circumstances, rather than just the solitary bright line rule. The reason that I did not report The 13th 4postle is because they corrected the WP:V/WP:OR issue. I hope that The 13th 4postle will abide by the editing restrictions and the principles highlighted in WP:ARBAP2 going forward, as we all should. - MrX 🖋 11:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I asked if we should get clarification somewhere about exactly what the restriction means, but that didn't seem to have any legs. I guess the only thing to do is open reports at AE and see what consensus emerges. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 COVID-19, broadly construed. 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.

Acroterion (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]