User talk:Marksa3

February 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Aloha27. Your recent edit to the page David M. McIntosh appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Aloha27 talk 17:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Steven F. Hayward. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Hayward did not write the article as you stated. Aloha27 talk 18:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at David Boaz, you may be blocked from editing. Again, Boaz did not write the article as you stated. Please stop adding incorrect information. If you continue to do so you may be blocked from editing. Regards, Aloha27 talk 18:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Aloha27 talk 18:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at David M. McIntosh. * Wikipedia is not a place to advance political commentary Scr★pIron^IV 15:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at L. Brent Bozell III 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 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 your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page 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 three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Scr★pIron^IV 15:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

==

February 2017[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:54, 23 February 2017 (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."

Accuse other editors of being paid editors without proof again and your next block will be longer. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017[edit]

Do not use multiple IP addresses to vandalize Wikipedia, like you did at Katie Pavlich. Such attempts to avoid detection or circumvent the blocking policy will not succeed. You are welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia but your recent edits have been reverted or removed. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Aloha27 talk 22:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Katie Pavlich. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been 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 notice boards.
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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Scr★pIron^IV 21:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page 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 three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You continue to reinstatement content against consensus on multiple pages in an area of discretionary sanctions, along with an indication that you will continue to edit war over it. Scr★pIron^IV 22:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging blocking Admin NeilN Scr★pIron^IV 22:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have article talk pages. You need to use them to gain consensus for your edits. And please remember to log in when editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:16, 9 March 2017 (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).

Marksa3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

None of the charges against me are true or correct. The people whose pages I have edited are political commentators/authors I have added sourced material written by those authors that are relevant to their political commentary. I have not changed my IP address; engaged in any nefarious edit war. My edits have been removed without any merit. I respectfully request that I be unblocked and that my edits be undone. Marksa3 (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your edits have already been undone. That you are unwilling to use article talk pages to gain consensus does not bode well for your future here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:15, 11 March 2017 (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.

You have also rarely used article talk pages [1] to gain consensus for your additions and have largely only posted to user talk pages to accuse other editors of censorship and paid editing. If you are unblocked how are you going to change your editing behavior? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marksa3 (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)== Who Cares! ==Marksa3 (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC) You are a bunch of neo-fascist censors. You protect the people who pay you. Adios.[reply]

Disruptive Wiki Editors[edit]

How can political statements written by the author be disruptive when they were published in a major newsmagazine signed by the author. It appears the wikipolice are the ones being disruptive. Each entry I made in Wiki was sourced in the reference section.08:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Marksa3 (talk)

I am going through some of the posts here, after reverting an edit of yours. Let me just say right now that adding that person X wrote some article, with a link to the article, isn't doing anything useful--it looks just like resume padding. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You got blocked for disruptive editing (including edit warring), and then you go right back to doing the same thing. Means you haven't learned not to disrupt. In addition, your edits don't seem to indicate that you really have a good grasp of what we're doing. And unlike what you may have read on the Internetz, we neo-fascists (???) don't actually get paid for what we do, though I can't vouch for NeilN. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snort. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]