I've responded there, but you can respond either here or there as you see fit. Long story short, what you were doing runs contrary to the way that AfDs are handled, so my undoing of your edits was entirely justified. BigHaz - Schreit mich an00:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
it is not even a vote just a discussion area-00:28,~ User:Fenetrejones 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion nomination of Joel Mutchimunyi Mulumba
Hello Fenetrejones,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Joel Mutchimunyi Mulumba for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Please do not create, maintain or restore hoaxes on Wikipedia. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia — and then to correct them if possible. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SamHolt6 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning your edits at Political status of Crimea, if Serbia voted against resolution condemning violations human right in Crimea it does not mean it supports the annexation. You have been reverted already three times, I will revert this again now, and if you continue without discussing at the talk page, I will seek measures which would restrict your participation in the project. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The UN Resolution is not just about human rights. It is also "Condemning the ongoing temporary occupation of part of the territory of Ukraine — the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (hereinafter “Crimea”) — by the Russian Federation, and reaffirming the non-recognition of its annexation". It also says "Recalling its resolution 68/262 of 27 March 2014 on the territorial integrity of Ukraine, in which it affirmed its commitment to the sovereignty," These two parts where the first parts of the resolution. which I found right here[1](There is a link on the page that will take you to the document.)Fenetrejones (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 recently shown interest in Eastern Europe. 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 any 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.
Thanks for uploading File:UN Resolution regarding Territorial withdraw of foreign soldiers in Moldova.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading File:Un Crimea Vote 2017-2.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
File copyright problem with File:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 62 167.png
Thank you for uploading File:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 62 167.png. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.
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.-- Toddy1(talk)12:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fenetrejones. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
Thanks for uploading File:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis Reactions.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
With this edit, you have continued to WP:EDITWAR to remove maintenance tags, without discussing on talk to gain consensus.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently 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. 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 you 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Your recent editing history at 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis shows that you are currently 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. 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 you 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.----ZiaLater (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies to you. I was not aware you were as new of an editor as you are. A Talk page stalker is a user to watches another user's talk page to see what they are up to. When I wrote (talk page stalker) using the {{talk page stalker}} template, I was not calling you a talk page stalker, but I was in fact referring to myself. It is generally custom for talk page stalkers to use that template to explain their presence on another user's talk page in a light-hearted manner. You have my deepest apologies for the confusion.
Fenetrejones, I wanted to make sure you saw the closure of the AN3, here. Admin Ed Johnston closed it with the message:
Result: Warned. Fenetrejones may be blocked the next time they add a country to the list based on sources considered unreliable, such as TASS. According to the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, TASS is reliable for scarcely anything other than the position of the Russian government. If there are different opinions about the usability of a source, get agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That I am!! If you ever have a question, or get frustrated, or really anything; post to my talk page. I will try my best to help you out! :D ―MJL-Talk-☖05:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Editor's Barnstar
I am awarding you this barnstar for all the improvements you have made in editing Wikipedia since last we had contact. It is very much appreciated that you have worked to make some real progress with working with the other editors! :D ―MJL-Talk-☖16:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for uploading File:Xinjiang reactions.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You added some references tags <ref name="un.org"/> (for example to Jordan) in September of last year. Unfortunately there is no reference with this name. Can you have a look and see if you can resolve this?
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Wilhelm Keitel, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT WARRING NOTICE
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 article's 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.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31h for edit-warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Adding categories
Please note that there is a requirement that any category added to an article must have evidence supporting that category in the article. It is not sufficient to cite outside sources, you must have confirmation in the article. You've been adding cats without support. Please stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first two guys were already listed as fascists and Christians in their categories, so Christian fascists made sense to me. It says that Himmler was a former catholic so he was a former german Christian. I already had evidence from categories already there.Fenetrejones (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There were already categories stating that Franz von Papen and Arthur Seyuss were fascist and Christian, so the category Christian fascists made sense. For Himmler, it already says that he was a former catholic, so former Christian makes sense too as he embraced paganism to some extent.Fenetrejones (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk!16:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
February 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Albert Speer; 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.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Baldur von Schirach; 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.
At WP:CATDEF, we are told that categories must be "defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having."
Read that source it is a 20 page document about the whole incident. Henry Gerecke and the nazi prisoners. It is confirmed that received the Eucharist. It is not a campaign. This document is also reliable. Lutheranism is also a branch of protestantism. Fenetrejones (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just re-read the document. It is confirmed that he took communion and the eucharist in Lutheran faith. It is confirmed on page 16 of the 26 document. "Fritzche along with Speer and Von Schirach asked Gerecke for communion after they had studied the bible with him for several weeks." This source is from a book called: Mission to Nuremberg and that book has been promoted as accurate and credible by sources like Washington post and New york times.Fenetrejones (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, he received the Eucharist and asked for communion. I'm not disputing that. But being "Protestant" ISN'T HOW HE IS DESCRIBED IN SOURCES. Nobody says "Hans Fritzsche was a Protestant who was tried for Nazi crimes." Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Fenetrejones: I see that you have been inserting language into several articles and assigning categories labeling subjects as "nationalists." Your edits have been reverted by many other WP users, and yet you are continuing on this crusade. Being a member of the Freedom Caucus does not mean they are a nationalist--nothing in that page says anything about nationalism. Please stop flagrantly assigning these categories to BLP articles without discussing the content in the talk page, please. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Is there a reason why your references are citing content that contains no mention of "nationalist?" The articles you are referencing to support your claim that an individual is a nationalist isn't stated at all. For example, this edit includes a reference, but that referenced news article does not mention what you are alleging in your edit. This is just one example. Can you explain yourself please? PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bacondrum, I don't know why he is complaining about the populism category when he said fair enough. That category has been used for people long before I even became an editors, examples would be for the articles of Bernie and Trump. Now for the nationalist category, America First (policy) is a type of nationalism, just like Nazism, Juche, Ba'athism and some others. America First (policy) is literally based on the principles of nationalism and the article doesn't hide it. Every self identified Ba'athist is an Arab Nationalist for example, because that is what Ba'athism is. Likewise, every self identified America First Policy Republican is an American Nationalist because that is what America First Policy is. Fenetrejones (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
And with the Matt Gaetz one, that article was actually already there before I added. I did not realize it at the time of the edit but if you scroll down on the page it is there.Fenetrejones (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Nationalism can be a broad term and there are many variants of it. Fenetrejones (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
And with pertaining to types of Republicans. There are a handful of types. There are Libertarian types of republicans like Rand Paul and Thomas Massie. Rand Paul is included in the category Category:American libertarians, because he embraces libertarian ideology. There are those considered Neo-conservatives, which is particularly used on describing Bush administration members and people like John McCain. Fenetrejones (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effort to Remove Liz Cheney from Chair of House Republican Conference until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! Missvain (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request that you attempt to personalize the sections you are pasting in several articles, a la this edit. Duplicating sentences, word-for-word, is incredibly unencyclopedic. You are not a novice editor and you must know this. How is the content you added encyclopedic? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
"which protects so-called Dreamers—immigrants who illegally moved to the U.S. when they were children" is a biased presentation of DACA. Children are brought to another country by adults, they don't "move" themselves. And "so-called" looks like a workaround of MOS:SCAREQUOTES. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addition of voting records to politicians articles.
Fenetrejones, I noticed that you did a mass add of content to articles about politicians. I'm concerned that these additions don't cite sources that establish weight for the additions. As an example, [2], I would agree that the sources you added are reliable for fact but they don't establish any WP:WEIGHT for inclusion. Effectively, we need a RS that establishes that it's significant to the topic of the politician that they voted some way for some specific bill. If no sources are saying why it's significant that Senator X voted for bill Y then we should leave it out of their BLP article. Most of the time how a politician voted on a particular bill is not due. I wanted to get your thoughts on my concern rather than just doing a mass revert of your 18 Jan edits. I understand it would be shocking to see a notice that says so many edits were reverted! Thanks, Springee (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is RollCall really a source that establishes weight for these additions? Looking a most of your recent edits it seems like there are a few bills of interest and then you have noted on various BLPs where a person voted against those bills. I don't think this would pass NPOV since you haven't shown it was notable that they voted for/against the bill. Do you have stronger sources that really focus on why such votes might pass the 10YEAR test? Springee (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fenetrejones, please hold off on more of these additions since WEIGHT is a concern. I think this should go to NPOVN to figure out how many of these edits should be kept. I don't think you have made a case that these specific bills have DUE weight on all these different BLPs. Springee (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. While looking at the page for David McKinley I noticed you added a statement about his LGBT rights policy, stating that In 2015, McKinley was one of 60 Republicans voting to uphold President Barack Obama’s 2014 executive order banning federal contractors from making hiring decisions that discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity. - as well as adding this to the pages of numerous other Republicans (Don Young, Mario Diaz-Balart, Elise Stefanik, Rodney Davis and Adam Kinzinger for the ones I found), but the reference for all of these was just copied text stating what was at the end of the statement - "upholding President Barack Obama’s 2014 executive order banning federal contractors from making hiring decisions that discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity", with no link or any indication of where you got this information. Did you have a source for this that you accidentally left out? If so, please send a link, it would make it much easier as I've had to replace the references with "citation needed" tags at risk of potentially deleting the statements. Thanks in advance. ser!(chat to me - see my edits)00:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't add categories which are unsupported by reliable sources, particularly in BLPs. While I agree with you that two of the people who's articles i've undone your edits to are probably far right and nationalists, it isn't supported in the content and not by established reliable sources (at least not enough to make such statements in wiki voice.) PRAXIDICAE🌈17:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I undid your edit, but removed the categories in the process. So the reason you undid it for, is still undone. I just kept the other content. Fenetrejones (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no objection to that. I agree that she is far-right and I'm searching for sources but unfortunately most seem hesitant to outright label her as far-right but they often say "aligned with the far-right". PRAXIDICAE🌈18:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from Yahoo, none of them call her explicitly far-right herself, one applies it to 3 different people and doesn't go into it further, the other says far-right ally which is close to calling her far-right and the last says she's part of a far-right caucus. While I know as a voter that her identification with the far-right ultimately makes her far-right, it does not make her far-right in wiki-voice. PRAXIDICAE🌈20:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
found some. It talks about IL15 as an example of a far right victory.
I only just noticed this discussion. Fenetrejones, do not ignore this discussion. Praxidicae has some good advice for you. You have tried several times *after* this discussion to label Mary Miller far right in the opening sentence of her biography, with insufficient sourcing: [4], [5], [6]. You need to stop and discuss this on the talk page or you will just end up blocked again. ― Tartan357Talk23:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Praxidicae, User:Tartan357, I'm getting a bit tired of this user just ramming every little NEWSy factoid in here, referenced with primary sources or with local websites. I think they've done this on other articles as well, and it's not helpful. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to apologize to me. I have not been following the other concerns about your editing. We had a good conversation about the far-right issue on the article talk page. As general advice, if someone disagrees with you, open a discussion on the article talk page and if you respect that discussion you will have very few problems. ― Tartan357Talk04:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying this with the best intentions here because I don't see this ending well for you - you are quickly headed to a block or topic ban from the Mary Miller article, at minimum and I strongly suggest you listen to @Tartan357 @Drmies and others and as a sign of good faith, revert your most recent edit. PRAXIDICAE🌈17:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Trumpism into List of politicians affiliated with the America First Movement. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Listing how politicians voted on a particular bill
Fenetrejones, I figured I owned you a talk page explanation since you are about to see a bunch of reverted edits :o ! As a general rule unless there is a notable association between a politician and a bill they voted on we don't list that they voted for/against any particular bill even if there is a RS article that says something like "These are the people who voted for/against X". Certainly if a politician worked to push/oppose a bill and their efforts were noted by RSs then we may include it. But when someone just voted for/against a bill we don't list it in their bio even if the bill itself is significant. I hope that explains why I just reverted a number of your edits and I'm sorry if the number of reverts was a bit of a shock. Springee (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Andrevan, thanks for the note. I've noted my opposition on those talk pages but I will let others decide if my arguments are persuasive enough to remove the content a second time. Springee (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the NPOVN discussion I think that violates OR to include it (see Masem's comment in this NPOVN discussion[7]). Basically you would need a RS to say why this any BLP subject's vote it has weight in the article. That said, I oppose it but I don't see it as a major issue. Springee (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Miller's page a bit more the Ukraine vote is hardly the worst thing on it. Lot's of similar "one of # of votes against X" entries and several examples of entries failing to use impartial language. Springee (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Libertarian Republican, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Perry.
You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|ComplexRational}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Republican politicians who support same sex marriage until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
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-1992 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.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
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 articles about 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.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
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.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
Your edit here [8] is a WP:COPYVIO - the text "an apparent misunderstanding over video shot for the Pennsylvania Democrat's bill about water contamination at Camp Lejeune," "Members of Congress are prohibited from using official resources to promote commercial endeavors.," is a direct copy-paste from the Axios link.[9]Andre🚐02:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fenetrejones, could you please read or re-read WP:COPYVIO and start reviewing your recent edits for additional copy-paste issues? If you're willing to do so, I'd appreciate it if you'd ping me after you've resolved/cleared your last 100 edits or so, as I'd like to double check your work. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would love for you to take some more time on a second pass through. Some tips:
It's fine to briefly quote the text of laws, but it needs to be clear that the text is quoted.
Pasting seven words from the title of a source is too much, and inserting the word "also" doesn't change that.
It would please me, greatly, to be able to say something tomorrow at ANI like "Fenetrejones definitely violated copyright in a few places, but they've demonstrated that they now understand the policy and have worked to fix past mistakes." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"how do do that": if you mean "how do I make it clear that text is quoted" then you just need to surround the quoted text in quotation marks and make sure it's followed by a footnote citation to the quoted source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
oh that I understand. I am just saying "I definitely violated copyright in a few places, but I've demonstrated that they now understand the policy and have worked to fix past mistakes as shown in recent edits." Fenetrejones (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I realise that it might be difficult to recognise what's correct and what's wrong in that article history due to the constant back and forth. My apologies to you if I misunderstood your intentions. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})11:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
November 2022
Just wanted to let you know, FEC filings are not considered reliable/acceptable sources for declaration of candidacy. Although I’m sure all those incumbent representatives will end up running, plenty of candidates file with the FEC for races and end up not running. Hotpotato1234567890 (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
Please stop. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Louie Gohmert, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. You have been cautioned by more than one editor about adding categories. Please learn how to do it correctly.Magnolia677 (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just went off by the material that was already there and that category was already there. Sorry I did not notice that it was absent in the article. I will take your warning seriously, and be more attentive going forward. Fenetrejones (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:CATSPECIFIC: "Each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs." This means if you add the category "food from Chicago", you would not add the category "food from Illinois" , because that would not be the most specific category. The policy also says, "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." Would you mind fixing the hundreds of unnecessary or unverified categories you have added? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!03:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fenetrejones, in this edit at 21:00 on March 22 you added a category at John Fetterman, which is a breach of your topic ban. On top of that, the source you added in the previous edit does not support the statement that Fetterman is an atheist. The source instead says in a couple of different ways that "he doesn’t publicly identify with a religious tradition". Writing on that basis that he is an atheist is a BLP violation. I'm on my way to remove it. If you cannot tell the difference between not identifying publicly with a particular religion and being an atheist, in my opinion you should not be editing biographies of living persons at all. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to find fault with Yngvadottir's reasoning. Please be aware that you could be blocked right now for adding a category. Please understand that you may be blocked without further warning if you do so again. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Block
To enforce edit restrictions placed by the community, you have been blocked from editing for one week. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Reminder to administrators: Edit restrictions placed by the community are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or consensus at a community noticeboard (you may need to copy and paste their statement to a community noticeboard).
Fenetrejones, you cannot violate the above restriction with impunity. Please note that further violations will result in a much longer block, possibly of an indefinite duration. El_C04:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: It would appear that Fenetrejones has continued to add categories to pages, in spite of his topic ban and recent one week block for violating the topic ban. See this, this, and this for a few recent examples. Marquardtika (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Block 2
To enforce edit restrictions placed by the community, you have been blocked from editing for one month. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Reminder to administrators: Edit restrictions placed by the community are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or consensus at a community noticeboard (you may need to copy and paste their statement to a community noticeboard).
Again, it is not feasible for you to violate the above restriction with impunity and without comment. Please reconsider. Next block will be 6 months to a year. El_C18:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a way to appeal the WP:TBAN, mentioned in my opening above: WP:UNBAN. There is also a way to appeal the WP:BLOCK itself, mentioned in each block notice: {{unblock}}. There is no acceptable minimum territory, that is not a thing. El_C21:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fenetrejones. It has been blocked from editing for a period of 2023-05-04T18:57:07Z to prevent abuse. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators:Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
You have some connection to ThisithewayGrogu. Until that is explained and the explanation is acceptable by an administrator, the block will not change and you are stuck with the standard offer. If you continue to ping people without providing said explanation, then your TPA may be revoked. -- Amanda (she/her)23:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!01:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop socking
Hi Fenetrejones. Please stop sockpuppeting. You are only wasting your own time, as all the edits you make when sockpuppeting will be reverted. If you continue to sockpuppet, it would take a miracle for you to ever be unblocked on this account; you still have a chance, so cease now. Curbon7 (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to confirm that the @Xy jns is not me but a friend from Ontario who I asked before typing this to restore any factual information that might have been undone. However I have not turned around on what I said about taking a hiatus for for now. That I was serious about. Fenetrejones (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@User:RoySmith I haven't been active for a while and I check my notifications and I am confused. those are not my accounts. I have never even seen those accounts until I opened up my page today. what is going on? Fenetrejones (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2023 (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).
Dear Wikipedia admins, I apologize for my behavior It was very wrong. I shouldn't have done that. I know you don't think I'm genuine cause of the past and that is understandable, but let me explain. The past year or so, I was suffering major depression and loneliness. On top of that pressure from college was getting to me and I felt like I had to be a doctor for my parents even though I didn't want to be. At one point in November, I was even contemplating suicide. Doing good faith (in the sense I wasn't editing with intentions of vandalism) wikipedia edits was one thing that just let me get away from all the mental disaster going on. It felt good to write detailed articles about foreign relations and when hours of work was suddenly deleted by User:Girth Summit , I was mad. It also doesn't help that I suffer mild autism. I just started getting the much needed mental help that I needed and it started this past week, I have been slightly improving but I still have a ways to go. I am disappointed in my actions and I do genuinely apologize for being an inconvenience to the admins. I am not asking for my block to be lifted, I am asking for a block for about one to two years, I know I will be a mentally changed person by then.
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 would also point to WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. Do note that the standard offer is not a guarantee that you will be unbanned; please prove you can contribute constructively at another Wikimedia project (e.g. Wiktionary, Commons, another language Wikipedia, etc.) and most importantly stop sockpuppeting, and your chance will improve. Curbon7 (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am extremely disappointed with your most recent instance of sockpuppeting, in which you verbally abused the blocking admin. I thought we were at an understanding that you would stop sockpuppeting and contribute constructively elsewhere, and yet barely 3 months after you stated you would stop sockpuppeting you pulled this stunt. Curbon7 (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is NOT my alt. I stopped 3 months ago. Do you need me to send proof on twitter for that? I have been entirely inactive on wikipedia. Fenetrejones (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a hunch that there were two different people caught up here, but the trouble became when you edited using the other person's account a few months ago (or vice versa, I don't remember which it was) which has muddled the various accounts together. Curbon7 (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what has ben going on as of late to be honest. I haven't been on this site for a while besides to read. I apologize for this inconvenience. I had no idea what was happening right now. I have honored my word. Fenetrejones (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign endorsements until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
