141.154.49.21

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2024 California Proposition 36 (September 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by S0091 were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2024 California Proposition 36 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, 141.154.49.21! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! S0091 (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2024 California Proposition 36 has been accepted

2024 California Proposition 36, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Harlan County, Kentucky, you may be blocked from editing. Blanking your warning does not change anything. The source you have now added does not adequately support your first claim, and the second claim is still unsourced. Take this to the talk page. Meters (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If you would like to look at the talk page, be my guest. Your willful lack of understanding does not make me incorrect, but I made sure to add many, many, many references for your viewing pleasure. 141.154.49.21 (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Harlan County, Kentucky. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. Meters (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have made several improperly sourced or even incorrect claims. Your third try was slightly better, but at this point you need to discuss this material. Per WP:BRD you should have done this the first time you were undone. Twice you made unsourced claims about Harlan Count "Like the rest of Eastern Kentucky" when there was no data for the rest of Eastern Kentucky. You then changed it to "much like the rest of rural Kentucky" with a source that did not compare Harlan County to all of rural Kentucky. And twice you made the claim that in 2020 "Trump [had] the highest margin any candidate has received in history over Democratic nominee Joe Biden." 2020 was the only time Trump and Biden have run against each other, there is no data in the table for any other county, and the Republican margin over the Democrats actually decreased in 2020. The third time you changed the claim to "Trump [having] the best result (85.38%) any candidate has ever received." Meters (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Not a single county page sources its political overviews, as I made clear in that talk page. If you are willing to wipe "like the rest of eastern Kentucky" out, the same decision must be made for literally any form of political analysis on all 3000+ county pages, since all are unsourced. 141.154.49.21 (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Harlan County, Kentucky. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Meters (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

"Personal attack" is a haaard stretch bud, since not once did I mention you, disparage you, or make any comment referring to any specific individual. Calm down. 141.154.49.21 (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Communication is required

Removing messages means you have read and understand them; it does not make them go away. If you want content included and others disagree the WP:onus is on you start a discussion on the article's talk page to gain WP:consensus. Continuing you restore your preferred version will lead to you being blocked (you meaning person, regardless is you use account or an IP). S0091 (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

A reminder to read this message again. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 05:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign non-political endorsements. --Yamla (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

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.

November 2024

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at 2024 United States presidential election in Nevada. I am giving an only warning because you have already recently been given a final warning, appear to be edit warring, & should have enough sense to go cautiously when editing contentious topics. Peaceray (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for disruptive editing, a belligerent attitude in edit summaries, edit warring, & poor judgement in editing a contentious topic, as done at Barack Obama "Hope" poster.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Peaceray (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Unblock Request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was recently blocked for "belligerent edits" on two pages. One being 2024 United States presidential election in Nevada, in which I correctly pointed out, after carefully reviewing all previous Nevada presidential election pages, that this was the only election in which the Republican won Nevada yet lost the two largest counties in the state. I was given no warning for this (correct) statement, and was blocked immediately. I was also blocked for my edits on Barack Obama "Hope" poster, in which I merely added the prefix "then" to the phrase "U.S. presidential candidate," hardly an uncontroversial statement since Barack Obama is not the current presidential nominee, to the best of my knowledge. I will note that my edits were specifically pointed out by User:Peaceray and subjected to an immediate block with zero warning, despite having never interacted with said user. It is of my opinion that I am being unfairly targeted by allies of User:Binksternet, with whom I have previously had conflicts, and whom has previously reported me in bad faith for "vandalism." Those who are reviewing my case will notice that my edits in this case were hardly controversial, especially since the vast majority of political analysis in articles relating to the 2024 presidential election are so far unsourced and have yet to be targeted by User:Peaceray. It is, in my opinion, highly unlikely that a completely random user would have immediately subjected me to a block with no warning mere minutes after I had a dispute with a completely different user, unless the two are working together. Thank you very much for your time in reviewing said claim. 141.154.49.21 (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I also see the poor attitude in your edit summaries. The issue is less the merits of your edits than that. I'd like to see a little more collegiality. If you have a grievance with another user about their conduct, take them to WP:ANI. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

Hey Peaceray, I have no opinion on this unblock request (it's late, I'm about to fall asleep) but are you aware that administrators shouldn't decline unblock requests where they imposed the original block? See here for more information. The purpose of an unblock request is for third-party review from another admin, and declining an unblock here isn't in line with that policy. Fathoms Below (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fathoms Below: I believe you are correct & have undone my denial. I am not yet two weeks into my adminiship, so I am bound to make some mistakes & thank you (& any other editor) for guiding me towards correction. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

141.154.49.21 received a final warning at 17:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC) & received a notice about editing contentious topics at 17:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC). 141.154.49.21 continued editing in a disruptive manner on November 13, 14, 17, & 18 of November. I issued one more warning at 05:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC) before I had fully reviewed 141.154.49.21's edits. Based on the warnings of November 12, I decided to block 141.154.49.21 for 31 hours. Peaceray (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Said warning about "contentious topics" did not mention the exact POV bias that was alleged and instead directly instituted a block. As I mentioned in my denial, you would have to go through all 50 state pages to remove unsourced information that is no more or less contentious than my own edits. Additionally, one of the primary sources of my block, namely the Obama poster, is not even a contentious topic, and at no point were my edits ever accused of being biased or contentious - they were just categorically denied by a random user deciding to edit war and track my editing history. 141.154.49.21 (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This unblock request acknowledges that the hard policy of WP:No original research was violated. The argument appears to be that lots of people violate the policy, and that the original research was performed accurately, delivering a factual conclusion. These arguments cannot have any headway against a hard site-wide policy. The solution to having lots of people violate the policy is to systematically seek them out and convince them to behave otherwise, blocking those that refuse to adapt. The solution to a single editor refusing to adapt is a block. You said you were "carefully reviewing all previous Nevada presidential election pages" to arrive at a conclusion—this is a patent violation of the policy. The idea that this is "unfair targeting" of you is an unfortunate side effect of your intransigence. Each of the editors who has been violating the policy will be sought out and advised to stop. Binksternet (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

141.154.49.21 editor, regarding your statement that you would have to go through all 50 state pages to remove unsourced information that is no more or less contentious than my own edits, I would suggest reading the WP:WHATABOUTX portion of the WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay. Problems that exist on other articles do not justify an individual's inappropriate editing or behavior. Peaceray (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Then what is your response to said user repeatedly reverting nearly any edit I make in the past weeks, several times for no reason at all and several times not even due to the express violation of any rule? To my knowledge, User:Binksternet has failed to seek out any other editor, nor has he even remotely attempted to change other pages. Instead, my edits, which have been sporadic and random, have been targeted and reverted nearly immediately every time. It has been weeks since said user first had a conflict with me, and he has failed to enforce his supposed rule on any other page, including the vast majority that are experiencing WP:NOR violations in the wake of the last few weeks. 141.154.49.21 (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, WP:WHATABOUTX is regarding entire articles. It has little to do with this topic. 141.154.49.21 (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey bud, doesn't your immediate block of that other dude violate WP:Sockpuppetry rules? You probably should have reported it before immediately blocking a random guy that couldn't possibly be me since he is on an entirely different continent and Wikipedia has a solid VPN blocker. 141.154.49.21 (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

---