User talk:LordOfWalruses

Why did I have points taken off for my Sinaloa Cartel edit? The wording on that page was genuinely problematic.

February 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. William Avery (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi LordOfWalruses! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may only make edit requests on talk pages dealing with the Arab/Israel conflict. Please review the templates above for more information. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was discussing with other editors on the article about Donald Trump, and a notification told me (after I wrote some replies) that the article was in a contentious topic. Am I not allowed to post talk pages/replies on an article in a contentious topic? If so, should I do something about the replies I already made? If I made unauthorized posts or other mistakes, please forgive me for this. LordOfWalruses (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for WP:ECR violations, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week Wikipedia. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

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).

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

Request reason:

All I did was restore my talk page after it was removed without reason or explanation, and for this, I was blocked. There was no justifiable reason for my talk page to be removed, and if there was and it was explained to me, I wouldn’t have tried to bring it back. I didn’t even know that this was a blockable offense; it’s just an edit, so what rule is it breaking?LordOfWalruses (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for violating the restrictions on edits related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Users are not permitted to make edits related to the conflict in any way unless their account is 30 days old and has 500 edits or more. 331dot (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2024 (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.

@311dot I understand why and I will try to avoid this mistake in the future, but there’s one other thing I must ask; does this apply to talk pages and/or fixing grammatical/syntax errors? LordOfWalruses (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot I understand why and I will try to avoid this mistake in the future, but there’s one other thing I must ask; does this apply to talk pages and/or fixing grammatical/syntax errors?

Also @311dot, I apologize for accidentally tagging you; I meant to tag someone else and I was off by one number. LordOfWalruses (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot I left a reply asking you about grammatical/syntax errors and/or talk pages. Please reply whenever you can, and I’m sorry for the excessive talk pages on my home page; I kept screwing up the tag system. LordOfWalruses (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; despite appearances, I'm not here all the time. If you want to do something simple and uncontroversial like fixing spelling or grammar in an article or text related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you should make an edit request. Please see the guidance about these rules above. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for suggestion

You mentioned that you missed the tear gas image from the Jan 6 article. I have a memory of removing that because there were too many images in that part of the text and MEANING to re-add it later in the article. It's a good image, I would have been sad to see it go, thanks for pointing out that it got lost in the shuffle. Feoffer (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome, and thanks for listening to my suggestion. Have a nice day. LordOfWalruses (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, please

No matter the disagreement between you, it's very inappropriate for you to tell Soibangla "Now get off this site and go to Reddit to cry about the editors “biased” towards conspiracy theorists like you." Wikipedia has a policy of No personal attacks. Bishonen | tålk 21:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Understood; I apologize for those personal attacks which went too far. However, the user is question has been spreading conspiracy theories and has accused this site of bias and manipulation, and such statements should not be allowed to spread on this site. LordOfWalruses (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Blocked. It's interesting to see your attack at ANI just 12 minutes after I warned you about personal attacks against Soibangla. On ANI you call Soibangla "a far-left conspiracy theorist", so I guess my warning didn't impress you much. I've blocked you for 48 hours for repeated personal attacks. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. (Incidentally, what do you take to be the point of apologizing to me?) Bishonen | tålk 22:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
That title of the talk page was made before I read your warning; I was busy typing out the talk page and I didn’t notice that you told me to stop. I understand your point on apologizing to Soilbanga on their talk page, and I should’ve done that; I only responded to you because your message was the first notification of my misconduct that I got. (You can check my edit history in case you doubt me, but I sincerely renounce my conduct and I will make sure not to repeat these mistakes in the future.) LordOfWalruses (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

l

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).

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

Request reason:

I admit that I went too far with those personal attacks; I made far too aggressive statements that inexcusably attacked the other user’s character. However, it was hard for me to realize that at the time considering the loaded statements and false claims (including widely debunked conspiracy theories) that the user was making; blocking me for a solid two days for something that seemed like a fair reaction at the time is excessive. Wikipedia‘s policy even says that users should be warned about their bad behavior before action is taken, and said warning wasn’t given to me; the moment I was made aware of my mistakes, I made an apology on my talk page before I found out that I was blocked without warning. I understand that the other user’s actions did not validate my response and I promise not to repeat the same mistakes again, so please unblock me. Thank you.LordOfWalruses (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Bishonen's chronology is correct. You were warned, you continued your bad behavior, and now you're briefly blocked to protect Wikipedia from continued bad behavior for a little while. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:43, 25 July 2024 (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.

LordOfWalruses (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the moment I was made aware of my mistakes, I made an apology on my talk page before I found out that I was blocked without warning. Blocked without warning? The moment you were made aware of your mistakes? No, you have the chronology wrong. First I warned you Special:Diff/1236654015; then, instead of replying to me, you posted more attacks on ANI Special:Diff/1236655712; then you apologized (to me, it seems, rather than to Soibangla) Special:Diff/1236656397. Then I blocked you, with a reference to those repeated attacks after having been warned. Take a look at the timestamps. But I will leave decisions about your block to the reviewing admin; no need to consult me. Bishonen | tålk 22:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I didn’t notice your response and I admit that I should’ve apologized to Soibangla, which I will do in the event that my account is unblocked. LordOfWalruses (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Like I said, I didn’t notice Bishonen’s warnings because I was focused on writing my talk pages, and next time, I will be careful to ensure that this does not happen again. LordOfWalruses (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You do not appear to be blocked at present. SQL ^{Query Me!} 20:39, 28 July 2024 (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.

LordOfWalruses (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Soibangla, I’m sorry.

I can’t write this on your talk page because my account was blocked, but I want to say that my response to what you said was completely unwarranted and is something I sincerely regret. I am sorry for what I said and I should not have made such vicious attacks on your character. LordOfWalruses (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LordOfWalruses, you already have been blocked twice and you only have 75 edits to your account. This is not a good start to your editing career. I'm just posting this notice to ask you to be more careful. You can't talk your way out of blocks with excuses and the next one you receive if you can not abide by Wikipedia guidelines is likely to be a month or longer. Please take this seriously. At some point, admins will tire of giving you warnings and just decide you are a net negative to the project. You can still turn this around but realize that editors and admins do not have an infinite amount of patience.

If you have questions about editing on Wikipedia or its policies, after your block is over, bring them to the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning, and you are totally right; I have severely fumbled in many ways with it a short amount of time, and I will try my absolute best to be more careful. I will heed your warning and be very careful about my actions on Wikipedia in the future, and I will use the resource you listed if I have any questions or issues. Thank you for your concern. LordOfWalruses (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be sure you understand what you did wrong, you made personal attacks and assumed bad faith by implying that Soibangla was spreading conspiracy theories and making edits based on their personal POV and political beliefs.

From What is considered to be a personal attack?: "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions."
You must always WP:AGF. That means you must not attribute a person's editing to their personal POV or political beliefs. You must assume they are basing their edits on what RS say, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. If they are adding political POV to an article, without any sourcing, then go to their talk page and politely ask, not accuse, them about it. Ask them if they have a good source for what they wrote, because adding nearly any content without a source is itself a problem.

@Soibangla: is a very diligent and experienced editor, and we can all learn a lot from them. You would do well to assume they are usually right. When you find yourself disagreeing with Soibangla, why not politely ask them for clarification? You will more than likely learn something factual that runs contrary to what you have formerly believed. Soibangla is a famed debunking and fact-checking expert who is known by some very prominent (Elon Musk, for one) pushers of BS and conspiracy theories. Between Musk and Soibangla, the latter is nearly always right, but that's a low bar, because he's pretty ignorant of some important matters. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, for everyone's sake, it's finally official: FBI says Trump was indeed struck by bullet during assassination attempt. It took this long to confirm that fact. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]