Jump to content

User talk:MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk | contribs) at 05:16, 23 October 2020 (→Barnstar!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! X1\ (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Reverted

Hello, I have reverted your edits to the various election-by-state articles. While you may not find the added information to be "relevant", it may be helpful to some readers to clarify that the winner of the election is not necessarily the candidate who receives the most votes. BD2412 T 01:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. While it may be some bonus information for any reader, the pages they are on (i.e. presidential election results in individual states) do not necessitate that data and if anyone who is going to those pages they are more than likely specifically looking for that individual state's results in the election. Not the candidate's nationwide result. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The pages are entirely organized on whether the candidate who won the election nationally (i.e., the Electoral College) also won the popular vote in the state. Presenting the information in a footnote is the least intrusive way to clarify any potential confusion over the fact that the national election winner is not necessarily the national popular vote winner. BD2412 T 02:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any potential "confusion" over a candidate not being explicitly stated as the loser of the popular vote is only a fear held by those who wish to publicize the fact they did lose it. Anybody would rationally come to the conclusion someone such as Trump is widely-known to have lost the nationwide popular vote. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote in question refers to four candidates – it is certainly not so widely known that this also applies to Benjamin Harrison and Rutherford B. Hayes. You removed all the notes, not just one, which now makes me wonder if you were even paying attention to what you were removing. BD2412 T 10:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already previously stated, anybody coming to these pages are not going to be looking for nationwide electoral results but for state-specific election returns. With that said, I sincerely doubt anybody adding this is doing so to inform someone George Bush lost the 2000 popular vote out of educational purposes, but rather to make the presidential winner look bad cause they weren't "democratically elected" as opposed to their opponent. For your information I was paying attention to what I was doing, which is in fact why I removed all four of the footnotes in the first place. Why would I keep Hayes's and remove Trump's? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have evidence to the contrary. The reason I added the footnote to the articles was that an IP editor switched the columns for Clinton and Trump in an article, likely because they thought the "winner" column referred to the popular vote winner. Including the footnote makes it clear that by "winner" we mean the winner of the election, which will avoid the kind of confusion that appears to have happened here. In any case, it's a footnote. It doesn't "publicize" anything or make anyone "look bad". It merely relates an historical circumstance relevant to the column. BD2412 T 23:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to cater to a 1% demographic based off a single edit be my guest. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of ArbCom-authorised discretionary sanctions

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.

Template:Z33

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.

Template:Z33

--OhKayeSierra (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at List of presidents of the United States instead.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Sulfurboy (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sulfurboy (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your section heading at Talk:Gretchen Whitmer

Please don't add section headings like that again. Talk pages are as much covered by discretionary sanctions as are articles, or indeed any page on Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Information icon Hi MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Republican Party (United States) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia — it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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. You are marking almost all your edits as "minor" when some of them significant text. Another editor has already informed you of the "minor edits" policy a few days ago. Please stop marking your edits as minor unless they abide by that policy. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relax friend. Your coming here and acting overly-aggressive is a mad look on you. I don't appreciate your tone and I think you need to relax or I'll likewise make a report. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was not aggressive at all. You can make whatever idle threats you want. Please edit this encyclopedia properly going forward now that two editors have warned you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of major-party United States presidential candidates who lost home state, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Information icon Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Ancestral background of Presidents of the United States, from its old location at User:MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Community sanctions covering Covid-19

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.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 08:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of American Independent Party

Hello! Your submission of American Independent Party at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ancestral background of Presidents of the United States has been accepted

Ancestral background of Presidents of the United States, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Modern Major General  I quote the fights historical 17:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Block next time

You'll be blocked next time you troll Talk:Donald Trump. Talkpages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for expressing your opinions of other people, on Wikipedia or off it. Bishonen | tålk 19:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

PS, this is not to prevent you from taking part in the discussion. With "trolling", I mean your restoration of this edit. I've removed it again. Bishonen | tålk 19:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen, 5% of American COVID deaths are from New York nursing homes ordered to take positive patients by Cuomo. What do you mean by trolling for speaking this truth? This is a horrible thing. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Ernie, in my opinion you have been here long enough to know what talkpages are for and what they're not for. Bishonen | tålk 19:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
With all due respect, you're either blind or a hypocrite to accuse me of "trolling" (cause I'm definitely not editing with good faith, which I love how I'm accused of not assuming of others whilst they never assume so of me) when I respond in equal measure to:
Don't bring Pelosi or Cuomo into this. They're not the ones trying to pack churches in the middle of a pandemic.
Gee wiz, mister, I bet he's editing with the bestest of intentions. Don't fret over it. I'm not bothering with that article anymore, it's a waste of time. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
,Pretty clearly not editing with good faith as I saw this. Keep going and I see either a topic ban or Talk: block in your near future. I alerted you to discretionary sanctions above but that doesn't seem to have made any difference. Doug Weller talk 20:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty clear evidence of bad faith editing warranting a block? Amazing. It must be that time of the 4-years again. Cjhard (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. BD2412 T 20:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want to get involved, but will just say a few words. It's a shame that you might lost editing in this subject for six months. Your list is very promising, and could easily be made into a featured list if you work on it. Don't waste your potential with immature stuff like this. Just please remember that Wikipedia isn't a soapbox and decidate your time that you have to improving your list or whatnot. Stay out of the Trump talk page, and be more mature please. Thanks. Modern Major General  I quote the fights historical 23:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words, Modern Major General. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Larry Sanger; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. 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 and 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. ——Serial # 09:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump re-revert

Re your re-revert, please refer to the second sentence of the nutshell at WP:BRD. Discussions are not held by re-reversions and edit summaries, and we don't re-revert just because we disagree with the rationale for the BRD revert. Kindly self-revert your re-revert, then take the issue to the article talk page or drop it. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're an oddly aggressive man, your demand to "drop it" and your blunt statement of "[e]nough already" in your initial revert as if my relatively mundane edits are somehow stepping on your toes like you own the article were tip-offs already. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "enough already" is understood by editors who have been around that article for years and have some insight into the history. Point taken that it looks different to someone who has not, and I apologize for those two words. In any case it's a bad look to divert from good faith criticism by pointing at flaws in the criticizer's delivery. I see now that your re-revert has been reverted by a different editor, albeit for a different reason, which is good enough for me. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Until now I was not aware of the May ANI complaint against you (which closed without action only because it was wrong venue). Considering your own admission there I have a track record of being "contentious" (with which I wholeheartedly agree), it seems more than a little hypocritical to call me out for "enough already" and "drop it". Given the thoroughly negative views about Wikipedia that you expressed there, which amount to a generalized presumption of bad faith, I wouldn't bet on your chances of being around by this time next year. But good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken you would be wise to listen to the advice Mandruss is giving you. Donald Trump and many American politics article have strict editing restrictions. There is a prominent notice next to the edit window as well as on the talk page. You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article. If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit. If you ignore the restrictions again, you may be blocked from editing or topic banned. - MrX 🖋 11:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Garnett.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Information icon Hi MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken.  I wanted to let you know that political endorsements must meet all three of these criteria:

  1. The endorser must have an article or be unquestionably entitled to one
  2. This endorsement must be covered by reliable and independent sources
  3. Coverage of the endorsement needs to use the word endorse, or other closely related synonym.

This is covered by the guideline WP:ENDORSE and the community consensus at WP:ERFC.

For that reason, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, poker websites, and blogs are not acceptable sources. Also, donating to a campaign or showing up to a campaign rally are not endorsements. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you - MrX 🖋 11:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did at List of Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign endorsements. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. This edit summary was totally uncalled for. —MelbourneStar☆talk 11:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken, please respect content guidelines. If you think that there is an endorsement in the source that I missed, please start a talk page discussion. If you disagree with the community consensus on WP:ENDORSEMENTS, you can start a new discussion at WP:VPP. - MrX 🖋

October 2020

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2020 United States presidential election in Indiana, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you.  — Tartan357  (Talk) 05:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

User:MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken: As the above sections are not your first incident in this topic area, but continue a pattern of aggressive editing, pursuant to the arbitration enforcement provisions for post-1932 American politics, you are now topic-banned from editing in the area of post-1932 American politics, broadly construed for a period of 90 days. Typically topic bans run for six months, but I am hopeful that a shorter period will be effective in dissuading further disruption. If you disagree, you may appeal this topic ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. BD2412 T 05:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll appeal but seeing as you guys consistently look for a reason to silence me it's a wonder why I should bother. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After reflecting on the comments in the ANI discussion, I am removing the topic ban from the log. I do regret having proceeded too aggressively on the matter, and will step away from use of the administrator tools for a time. BD2412 T 00:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

Would love to give you a barnstar for all the treatment you have been put through (so have I), while just trying to help; and actually helping me to solve an issue! But you don't have a user page and I didn't want to randomly create one for you! Is there any way to show my appreciation?! B. M. L. Peters (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you, I've went ahead and created one if you wish to do so. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken&oldid=984969974"