User talk:Core2012

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Core2012. I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! KnownAlias X 00:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Core2012. You have new messages at Talk:Skins (U.S. TV series).
Message added 07:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

your Rfa

I have closed your rfa per WP:NOTNOW. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 07:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA

I am sorry, but I have closed your Request for adminship prematurely. Simply put, you only have 76 edits on Wikipedia; while your edit count isn't the only determining factor, and numerous people have their own personal standards by which they judge RfA candidates, this particular RfA was all but assured of not passing.

I am sorry about this, and I hope you don't take it personally. If you continue to contribute to the project in a positive fashion, I am confident that you would be able to submit a successful RfA in the future. You may wish to consider applying for an evaluation by other Wikipedia editors for feedback on how to obtain the necessary experience. Once you are ready to request adminship again, there is a great admin coaching program available, as well as a guide to requests for adminship.

If you have any other questions about becoming an administrator, please don't hesitate to ask me. Good luck! Dusti^*poke* 08:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):Hi Core. Stick around, because there's an awful lot you still need to learn about contributing to Wikipedia before you can even consider being an admin - filling in edit summaries for example. Some editors who are 50 or 60 year old university professors with five years experience and 50,000 edits sometimes might even fail to become admins. I would suggest checking out the links on the welcome message I'm shortly going to post here, and if you really want to know what being an admin is all about, read WP:ADMIN, and User:Kudpung/RfA criteria where you will also find some more interesting links. Best wishes, --Kudpung (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Core2012, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Kudpung (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 03:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: American Idol

How do you know there will be six performances in the finale? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know because there are every year, in fact usually there's more but I figure it looks bad with that many TBA listed that many times. Just look back to last year's finale. The finales are always the biggest, best, and most watched Idol event each season.

June 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article 2011–12 United States network television schedule, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. KnownAlias X 08:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The entire schedule is attributable to the respective upfront press releases for ABC, CBS, The CW, Fox and NBC with the exception of the Cougar Town/Apartment 23 slot which is directly cited to this article. Please provide some evidence that What Would You Do? will be on the schedule when you say, or stop introducing it, especially when the ABC upfront doesn't even currently include Primetime as one of the renewed shows for 2011–12. And as for the baseball, it is not included on any of the previous schedules (for this century, at least), in all likelihood because the scheduling of games is sporadic and is usually attributed to afternoon games, and definitively because it is not attributed to the regular schedule the way football is, and as such is not sourced as being on the schedule. Scheduling a game is not the same as a regularly scheduled game; again, please source it or stop. KnownAlias X 08:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on User talk:Knownalias, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. KnownAlias X 10:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to 2011–12 United States network television schedule‎. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. KnownAlias X 23:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All information about living people must be sourced to reliable sources, or it will be reverted. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KnownAlias X 10:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask yourself, Core2012; who are you to me or anyone else on Wikipedia that we can take your word that you know or have met John Quinones? If I told you that I had a personal relationship with Glee's Jane Lynch, or that Jon Stewart was my wife's distant cousin, would you have any reason to believe me? Wikipedia's policy is to VERIFY with RELIABLE THIRD PARTY INFORMATION. Provide some evidence, or just accept that you know more than everyone else does, and walk away. KnownAlias X 10:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ABC source

That'll do just fine for a source. I had to remove it from the schedule, as nothing on there places it at a date or time, but I did add it (and Wipeout, incidentally) to the returning series section. I usually look for more official information in the press releases at ABCMedianet, but yours, finally, works great. KnownAlias X 22:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank God, because I was gonna just give up, though I never would do that. I don't see why it can't just be assumed that it will air at the same timeslot, considering it has EVERY single episode and season so far? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Core2012 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because this could be the year they flip it with 20/20 like CBS started doing with CSI and The Mentalist. Or maybe use it to fill the gap on Wednesdays or Sundays if Revenge or Pan Am flops until they're ready to plug in Good Christian Belles. We won't know until they announce their intentions. That's why it's not an assumption policy (Wiki calls that original research); it's a verification policy. Like any good reporter. Like John Quinones. Oh, and by the way, you really should sign your posts; adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your comments automatically adds your name and stamps the time so people know who you are when you're talking to them. KnownAlias X 23:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island.

The Governor did not sign the bill. Therefore, the bill is not a law. He has not signed it. Therefore, no action has been taking on the bill. It was Transmitted to Governor 06/29/2011. Please do not change the page again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarriageEquality (talk • contribs) 17:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bill is not signed. Therefore, it is still PENDING. Thegreyanomaly (the bill has NOT been signed yet). A person updated the map and it was CHANGED BACK because the bill has NOT been signed yet. Therefore, I am changing it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarriageEquality (talk • contribs) 01:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Femme Fatale Tour, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Xwomanizerx (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:American Idol Title Card.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:American Idol Title Card.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Run

Stop. There is an android version of Temple Run. --J (t) 22:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notices

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 abortion. 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.

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 11:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page List of rallies and protest marches in Washington, D.C. has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 11:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery

In this past week, you have tried to remove Arbery's race from the article three times, here, here, and here. You have also been reverted three times. Do not do it a fourth time. His race is 100% relevant to the story. Your editing is disruptive. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four times. here Twice incorrectly marked as minor edits. O3000 (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; 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:

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 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.

There is an ongoing discussion on the article's Talk Page. You can join it here Talk:Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery#African-American. Further reverts without engaging in the discussion are disruptive and may result in an report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Let's not let it come to that. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2020 (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. O3000 (talk)

May 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Guy (help!) 10:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. 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 ~~~~}}. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Core2012. Essentially every one of your edits has reflected a history of tendentious editing, to the extent that it seems like the purpose of your being here is not to build an encyclopedia but rather to engage in advocacy. You have a history of using misleading edit summaries, such as "Fixed typo" or "Fixed grammar", to railroad through changes that reflect a pattern of plain ideological agenda. Here are some of the common edits you've made:

Changing "undocumented immigrant" to "illegal immigrant"
De-capitalizing "Black" and removing the race of individuals (including edit-warring to achieve this)

Other than edits that contribute to a pattern of tendentious editing, you've made essentially no edits. After the expiration of this block, I strongly suggest that you shift your focus; I anticipate that any further block will be indefinite. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with your characterization of my edits. There is no reason to capitalize black, and illegal immigrant is the correct legal term. Core2012 08:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Based on this, I have extended the block to indefinite per WP:TE/WP:RGW/WP:NOTHERE. I have posted this to WP:AN] for review. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How would I be able to get the block removed? Core2012 15:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

See the guide to appealing blocks. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Core2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have now realized the importance of collaborative consensus on this website and if I wish to make similar edits in the future I will consult the talk page rather than simply edit without discussion. I was simply trying to keep articles neutral but I should’ve used discussion first.

Decline reason:

This is not convincing. You've been editing here for years, you knew this already. Frankly, I wouldn't support an unblock without you agreeing to a topic ban around race and American politics, broadly construed. Other administrators may well have a different opinion, however. Yamla (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am literally agreeing to discuss edits I wish to make before making them on articles in those topics. That solves the issue of problematic edits because if there isn’t a clear consensus I will not make the edit. Core2012 23:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Core2012. I think it may be helpful to clarify why I blocked. Essentially, I blocked your account because the purpose of your editing is to push pages closer to your ideological perspective (rather than to improve the encyclopedia as a whole). While this is a perfectly legitimate thing to do outside of Wikipedia, it's disruptive on Wikipedia. This is so even if you seek consensus for each edit before making the edit in mainspace; if you are here for just one issue or one viewpoint, and others aren't, you're going to utterly tire them out from discussing this issue and it's going to be disruptive to our editorial processes. That's why Yamla proposes a topic ban from race and American politics: that will give you an opportunity to show that you can improve the encyclopedia more broadly. Hopefully this helps, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By using the term illegal immigrants I am making those articles reflect legal terms rather than politically motivated ones. The Supreme Court as well as federal laws use illegal and not undocumented. Core2012 23:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It is also very inappropriate to state what you think the purpose of my edits are in a way that implies your opinion is indisputable because you do not know my intentions. Only I have the right to say that. Core2012 23:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This will be my last post here unless my participation is requested by a reviewing administrator. I apologize for declaring your intention; rather, what I mean is that it is apparent to me that that is your intention, and as a Wikipedia administrator I have to make that call when taking administrative action. Regarding the "legal term", your note is a content question that isn't really relevant to your block appeal, but every time you make it you're digging yourself into a bit more of a hole. According to the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, "illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant" are indeed used in immigration law, but collectively constitute only 46% of the legal usage; an additional 46% of the legal usage is "unauthorized alien" and "undocumented alien". (source) But in fact none of that is important, because we do not use the "legal terms" in our articles. We use language reflected in reliable secondary sources. While this is an ongoing debate, your position is not the only correct one; for instance, the influential AP Stylebook has shifted away from "illegal immigrant". In any event, none of that is the reason for your block; the reason for your block, as I said, is that your pattern of editing advances only one ideological position and that is not a good fit for Wikipedia. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, what can I do to be unblocked without agreeing to any ban? Core2012 01:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Core2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologize for my controversial edits and agree that I will consult the talk page any time I wish to make similar edits in the future. I should be allowed to make edits again because I will not make the same kinds of edits again without engaging in discussion first and if there is no agreement I will not make the edit. I am making this request because my previous one was denied with the admin making unreasonable demands as conditions for unblocking so I request different admins this time.

Decline reason:

I have examined your edit history and some specific edits, and it seems to me that you are here to push a conservative or Republican viewpoint instead of working collaboratively with others to arrive at a consensus based on what secondary reliable sources state. There are places to advocate for your viewpoint, this isn't one of them. I agree that a topic ban is needed (which you can appeal after a time, it is not permanent) so you can demonstrate with contributions in other areas that you can work collaboratively and use independent reliable sources instead of your personal viewpoint. I too do not think you will find an administrator willing to unblock you without a topic ban(I stress it would not necessarily be permanent), but one is free to do so if they wish. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Core2012: I edit-conflicted in declining this request, but my reason was pretty much identical to 331dot's, and I also would not support an unconditional unblock. If you edit collaboratively elsewhere and show no sign of promoting any ideological perspective in your edits (and whether you are doing so intentionally or not, your edits do come across that way), then an appeal against a topic ban could be reviewed a few months down the line. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that each admin can only review one of your requests, so it is not necessary to ask for different admins. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I want to do is be unblocked. I shouldn’t have to agree to censorship for that to happen. I am agreeing to reach consensus for controversial edits. Core2012 21:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

As multiple people have explained to you, you've demonstrated you are not capable of editing without causing problems. You are free to make one more unblock request, but given that multiple people have told you that you are unlikely to be unblocked without a topic ban, I strongly suggest you listen to what you are being told. If you can demonstrate several months of contention-free edits, you could then apply to have your topic ban lifted. You are free to plead your case that you should be unblocked without a topic ban, but based on your unwillingness to accept that your edits have been problematic, I have to warn you that it is unlikely to succeed. Remember, you have no free speech here; see WP:FREE. --Yamla (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla I did accept that my edits have been problematic. You seem to be missing this. Core2012 05:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

How many months would a topic ban last? And I wish for someone other than Yamla to respond. Core2012 23:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Core2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have taken the time to reflect on my behavior here recently. I agree my edits have been an issue and I wish to discuss a very limited potential topic ban. My only desire is to do whatever it takes to get my block removed ASAP and if a topic ban is unavoidable to have it as limited as possible and lifted without exceptions ASAP as well. I already have numerous productive and non-controversial edits in mind for pages on unrelated topics and I would like to be able to make those edits to start proving my value here.

Accept reason:

Per the discussion below, you are unblocked with a topic ban on race and American politics, broadly construed. That is two separate topics, by the way: "race" is one, "American politics" is the other. Please take the time to read up on what those mean. Six months from today, you may make an appeal at the administrators' noticeboard, at which point your behavior will be reviewed and the community will decide whether the topic ban is necessary. This topic ban is indefinite, so it will not expire until it is lifted by agreement of the community. Read all of the advice that 331dot, only, Julietdeltalima, and everyone else has given you above. Find an area completely unrelated to these topics and go edit there. If you start trying to evade this topic ban or start wikilawyering about how the article you're editing isn't really covered by these, you will be blocked again, and don't expect to come back from that one. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to the reviewing admin, but my suggestion would be a topic ban from race and American politics, broadly construed, which you could appeal after 6 months. 331dot (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 331dot's thinking for a potential topic ban. That being said, your going kicking and screaming into an agreement for a topic ban isn't inspiring much confidence to me. What are the "numerous productive and non-controversial edits" you have in mind? This can help us assess your ability to contribute to the project to weigh against your past edits that suggest you weren't here to improve. only (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surely—surely!—you're interested in some thing that doesn't implicate politics! Bicycle tires? Water gardening? Dale Murphy? Graham's number? Christopher Moltisanti?

Here's the big ol' litmus test: If you just now read that and felt yourself getting all tetchy because those things are not important compared to my political thoughts as an American in mid-September 2020, this isn't a good fit for a volunteer project for you. If you really want to make this a better open-source encyclopedia, show us that you're cool with spending an hour on a nice Sunday afternoon copy-editing articles like Caroline Calloway and the list of Tibetan dishes and zero-energy building and making them un-embarrassing when, someday, they get randomly brought up by Seth Meyers for some currently unforeseeable reason. If you only want to be the political defender of whatever you characterize your cause as, that's not helpful to this project. Gut it up and hit the "Random article" button in the left sidebar and show this community that you care about this project's article about, oh, hmmm... the 2016 Slovenian Olympic delegation. If your reaction is, "I don't care about that crap," have fun explaining that to our fine Slovenian colleagues, and please go back to your pre-Wikipedian endeavors. Thanks. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on some edits to articles related to the 2020 US TV primetime schedule and updating names of shows and other items. Core2012 02:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved admin here, I am willing to unblock you on the condition that you accept a topic ban from race and American politics. This topic ban could be appealed starting six months after your unblock, but would remain in force until successfully appealed. I need a yes or no: do you accept those terms? GeneralNotability (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does this get enforced and why is politics included? Race has been the primary issue here. Also would you be willing to make the ban be until January 1 2021? It’s not 6 months but it’s a more neutral date. Start fresh in a new year. Core2012 23:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

So, to be clear, you are unwilling to accept the option offered you by GeneralNotability, who asked you a yes or no question? --Yamla (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. I am allowed to make a counter offer first. You have been hostile to me the entire time Yamla. Core2012 23:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This is not a negotiation. Do you accept the offer, yes or no? 331dot (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no reason to be demanding I’ve been nothing but nice. I accept because since apparently there’s no other way to get unblocked. Core2012 23:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I also need to know that a neutral arbiter will review my ban appeal when that time comes. Core2012 23:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I obviously don’t plan to violate the ban but how exactly is it enforced? Core2012 01:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

If an editor sees you violating the topic ban, they can report it to the administrators' noticeboard. If an admin sees you violating the topic ban, they can block you. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Please sign all of your talk page posts with four tildes, ~~~~. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban violation

These edits ([1] [2] [3] [4]) were a violation of your topic bans from race and American politics, broadly construed, imposed by GeneralNotability. Please familiarize yourself with the wording of WP:TBAN:

This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia:Banning policy § Topic ban.[edit]

Shortcut
WP:TBAN

The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as:

weather-related articles and lists, such as Wind and List of weather records, and their talk pages;

weather-related categories such as all of the categories that are associated with Category:Weather;

weather-related project pages, such as WikiProject Meteorology;

weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;

discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia, for instance, a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist, but also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes).

A list of currently active editing restrictions (including topic bans) can be found here.

The sole exceptions to your ban are listed at WP:BANEX. Please note that further violations of this restriction will trigger further enforcement action. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of the six edits you've made since your block was lifted, five were in violation of your topic ban. You are exceedingly lucky that L235 saw this before I did. Had I noticed this first, I'd have blocked you immediately. Your topic ban was unappealable for at least six months; you should consider that timer reset; you can not appeal your topic ban until 2021-03-01. You won't get another chance. Any further violations and I will impose an indefinite block on you. --Yamla (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, I propose a ban against you on any further action against me. You have proven you are no longer a neutral admin. Core2012 17:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating your topic ban from American politics[5]..

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 ~~~~}}. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]