User talk:TheTBirdusThoracis

TheTBirdusThoracis, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi TheTBirdusThoracis! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Laura Loomer, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Laura Loomer. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. This issue has already been discussed on the article's talk page. Take it up there, but only if you have WP:RS to back up your assertions. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alerts[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.

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.

Doug Weller talk 18:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018[edit]

Your recent editing history at Talk:Emma González 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. Acroterion (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Emma González. Acroterion (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC) What was inappropriate about what I said? My Talk section keeps getting deleted by other people and I’m trying to voice my concern. I’m doing my absolute best to be fair on the subject. TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit-warring. Your latest revision is at least more focused on the article and not a forum-style gripe about the subject. Please stop using talkpages as soapboxes for your own views. Acroterion (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with my personal views and you know it. This is about being fair to both sides of this debate. Do this again and I will report you. Do you understand me? TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong on this matter and you definitely were expressing your personal opinions. Article talk pages are not the place for you to vent and express your opinions. Any article talk page comments must be directly related to possible improvements to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My personal views are limited to how necessary that comment made to Loesch at the town hall. Yes, I was horrified by that remark as would any decent human being. How do you think it’s goint to reflect on the subject in this article? TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that threatening admins for doing their job is not going to get you very far. I would suggest that you find another area to edit in as well because you clearly don't know what you're doing and jumping in feet first in American Politics is quite simply... unwise. Your career arc here is so far following the same as that of many others unless you change your behavior. Spoiler alert: the arc ends in a a block.--Jorm (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goody, I’ll be glad to report you then, Jorm because 1) you’re not a good at your job. 2) You were the one disrupting MY edits in a DISCUSSION. I have no interest in a career here since I’ll make more than you do in real life. TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cut the snark and treat other editors with respect, please. This isn't the way to get things done. You're on the edge of a disruptive editing block. Acroterion (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I simply want the same treatment which was challenged when this Jorm editor deleted my section in the Talk repeatedly. I don’t think I should assume you are giving him the same treatment. TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm isn't edit-warring to use the talkpage as a platform to complain about the subject of the article. You are. Please confine yourself to appropriate discussion. Acroterion (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He deleted my section two times already. Looks like edit-warring to me. TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to me. Three reverts is edit-warring, which is what you've done to use the talkpage as a platform to complain about the subject of the article. Acroterion (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which I deny because I complained specifically about what Emma said in the quote I provided. TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The block is based on this edit [1], which amounts to a return to the soapboxing that you've been amply warned about. Acroterion (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh there are many reasons why I think you’re wrong. You got nothing on me. Just wait and see. TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

Test TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So long as you're not abusive you can edit your talk page. Doug Weller talk 20:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is being abusive. In fact, I feel like some certain administrative authority is abusing their power. TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have 88 edits, consider the possibility you don't have the experience to make such judgments. But you can always complain at WP:ANI. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]