User talk:Bsubprime7

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Bsubprime7! Thank you for your contributions. I am HiLo48 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alert and warning[edit]

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 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.

Please see WP:NPOV and WP:V for guidance as to Wikipedia sourcing and content policies. SPECIFICO talk 15:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020[edit]

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 article's 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, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please note that article Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump is under 1RR (Limit of one revert in 24 hours) and 24-hr BRD cycle WP:BRD. See the warnings at Talk:Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump. O3000 (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that yo have violated WP:1RR and any non-involved admin can block you. I suggest that you show good faith by self-reverting your edits. O3000 (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up[edit]

Hi there, I noticed on Racial views of Donald Trump you broke the 1RR discretionary sanctions located at the top of the talk page with these two edits [1] & [2]. It looks like they have already been reverted and you started a discussion on talk so that is good. Topics about American politics are really tricky to safely navigate because of all the custom rules on those articles. I see you are kind of new here so if you have any questions feel free to ask me anything. Also when posting on a talk page, if you end your comment with ~~~~ it will sign your name for you and the bots wont have to add it on the end. PackMecEng (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. To be clear I believe I only did 1revert and did not violate the rules, but I have ceased all revisions while I wait to hear feedback from other editors. I hope you can take a look at some of the concerns I brought up.Bsubprime7 (talk)Bsubprime7

No worries, it happens. But I should say from what I see there were two reverts within 24 hours which I linked above. A revert is basically any time you remove or undo what another editor has done. So for example your first revert was here where you undid SPECIFICO's change and then the second one was here where you undid what Objective3000 did. I will take a look on the talk page and try to weigh in there as well. PackMecEng (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perusing the article history at Racial views of Donald Trump, I noticed that you often place detailed rationales in your edit summaries. That's great, but unfortunately tends to not be readily visible to other editors who would like to discuss the same issues that you are debating. Better use the talk page to make your point as a record of discussion, and keep the edit summaries shorter (just mention the relevant talk page section there if a longer explanation is needed). Happy editing! — JFG ^talk 08:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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 08:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You must follow these page-specific restrictions when editing material related to the Arab-Israeli until you have 500 edits and have been here 30 days[edit]

For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and
edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")

Also,

500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.

The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.

2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required. Doug Weller talk 08:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3. One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.

Note that this means your edits on such pages (which you aren't yet eligible to make) may be reverted by anyone at any time. These restrictions are stricter than those in most other areas because of the problems that we've had in this area.

This also means that you shouldn't be editing anything to do with the conflict at Ilhan Omar. You weren't aware of that when you edited, so there's no problem. Please just don't do it again. Note this is NOT a comment on the content of your edit. Doug Weller talk 08:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mike Pence. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Bsuprime7, please stop edit-warring. You have at least two editors who have opposed your edits, and asked you to gain a consensus, and you’re simply reverting them. Talk to them. Both User:Neutrality and User:Coffee are established editors, and not at all unreasonable. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly compelled you to post this on my talk page? In what way have my edits been disruptive? I am merely attempting to correct a false statement. I have attempted to engage these editors and they have been remiss in responding me to gain any form of consensus. I have gone through the proper channels and awaited to hear from them but have heard nothing.Bsubprime7 (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Bsubprime7[reply]

I was compelled because I saw edit-warring, albeit the “slow burn” variety. I think I was fair and civil in the template message. Edit-warring is always considered disruptive, regardless of the reason, or who is “right”. I pinged the editors by mentioning them, so perhaps they’ll be more talkative when they see the notification. I understand you’re frustrated, but as of yet there’s no consensus. The de facto process is to revert to the version of the content before changes being challenged as contentious were made, which is what was done with the revert by Coffee, and his edit summary. Things take time; if it’s not a BLP violation, then there’s not really a deadline. I’ll weigh in later myself, and give it a fair hearing—- as I said, I posted this because the recent edits popped up on my watchlist. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bsubprime7. 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. – bradv🍁 03:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]