Caustic3

Caustic3, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Caustic3! 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 Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Georgy Zhukov

Please add references to the text that you added, it is currently unsourced. Wretchskull (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Boris Yeltsin

Ok, so while I still have issues with the Boris Yeltsin article as of present, I appreciate that you took the time to tone down some of the language on your edits. I think one of the biggest issues is that while Yeltsin is portrayed as clearly wanting the break-up of the Soviet Union to happen, which is certainly possible but out of my depth of knowledge, I don't see clearly in your edits exactly 'why?' What was in it for him? Or what vision was he trying to accomplish? Even the articles on perpetrators of genocide and serial killers usually touch on motives for their actions. I admittedly don't have the time to read all the sources you put up and perhaps explanation is found in one of them. But if that's the case, I think it would be useful to transfer anything of that sort into the body of the article itself. It's not that Yeltsin's motive has to be clear or justify whatever you believe he did, but some historian or Russian studies writer must have gone through and tried to explain whatever it is he thought he was doing, right?

April 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Constitution of the United States. 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. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Constitution of the United States, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

A major problem with your revision also is the removal of all references. Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Wikipedia:Citing sources, Help:Footnotes. Donner60 (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Constitution of the United States. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  Kinu ^t/_c 23:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

My Appeal

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).

Caustic3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Caustic3 (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC) To Whom It May Concern, I was blocked recently for edit warring. This is not the case as my edits were made in good faith and accuracy. The article prior to my edits is factually incorrect and I believe may confuse readers and make them believe the edits in question. Article 3 of the US Constitution does not establish the judicial branch like the article says it does. The Constitution only says the third branch is to be a judicial branch lead by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the only court mentioned and it bestows Congress the power and responsibilities to create the judiciary. An administrator pointed to my lack of source material and I was accused of original research. However my source can be found in the constitution itself. I did not site my source because a copy of the constitution can be found right on the article in question. The current article is plagued with opinions in the opening without the others ide being considered. This is in violation of the fairness doctrine and the neutrality of Wikipedia. I wanted to explain the opinions more clearly to the reader and to lay out the counter argument. Eg originalism vs living constitutionalism. The other users did not consider the legitimacy of my concern especially with the language over Article III. I thank you for your time and I humbly ask that you remove my block on the grounds that my edits were factually based and made with the intention to improve the article.

Decline reason:

You were unambiguously edit warring; I see no indication you used the article talk page to reach WP:CONSENSUS. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:59, 1 May 2021 (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.

Upgrading and downgrading

Other than the process for achieving or losing GA or FA status, changing the other ratings (Stub, Start, C-class, B-class) are at the discretion of any editor. Personally, if I have made an effort to improve an article, I will upgrade Stub to Start or Start to C-class, but not C-class to B-class, leaving the last to any future editor's decision (although I might leave a comment on the Talk page to the effect that I think it's now B-class). Also, if I have begun to edit an article with intent to nominate for GA, I will state that on the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Boris Yeltsin

I reverted your last addition to Boris Yeltsin. Nothing to do with hating you. You have been quasi-edit warring on this article. You had added large sections of text without references, also deleted referenced content and references. All of your deleted content can be accessed (and rescued) at View history. What I suggest is that rather than one massive change, you develop segments of new content in your Sandbox, then copy those into the article as modest sized edits. For each, include an edit summary of what you did. That way, other editors can look at each change independent of the others. Be aware that this is already a B-class article with active watchers. Given history of your April changes being reverted, perhaps first start a discussion on the Talk page. Be patient. Already, there is a comment on the Talk page that the article needs improvement, so you are not alone. Per example of incremental changes, see Biotin, where I did more than 100 edits over DEC-JAN before nominating for GA (and then, many more edits to address the reviewer's concerns). David notMD (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

GA articles

Your changes to Stalin have already been reverted, and you should expect ditto for your changes to the September 11 attacks. Articles ranked GA have many opinionated watchers, with a strong disposition to revert all large changes to the language of the Lead, which has evolved over years. Perhaps stay away from GAs and FAs. David notMD (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

General sanctions notification

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 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

FDW777 (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Featured article nomination

The instructions for how to nominate an article for featured status are at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Please note that nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. DrKay (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

To add to that, nominating GA's and FA's is quite the undertaking. When you are nominating them, you are saying "I have worked on this article significantly to improve it, or have consulted the main editors of the article and secured their blessing to nominate for them". Nominating for GA is not the hardest for most articles. But nominating for FA is very difficult. Only 0.1% of articles are FA class. When something is featured, we're saying "this is the very best of Wikipedia. It meets every one of our guidelines and goes above and beyond. It is nearly perfect." I have written two FA's myself, and for each of them it took me over 100 edits, and at least 80 hours of research, writing, copyediting, formatting, picture wrangling, and then working with the reviewers of my article. If you are going to nominate an article, you should have thoroughly read the entire article, ensured every claim is well sourced, that the prose is excellent, that the pictures are appropriate, and that the formatting matches the WP:MOS. If you really do want to take a particular article to GA/FA, let me know, and I would be more than happy to mentor you. But if you just keep nominating articles without working on them much, you will not find success. AdmiralEek ^{Thar she edits!} 21:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of American Civil War

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article American Civil War you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Modussiccandi -- Modussiccandi (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

If you haven't, I suggest reading the GA criteria: WP:GACR :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of American Civil War

The article American Civil War you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:American Civil War for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Modussiccandi -- Modussiccandi (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Operation Barbarossa

Your recent edit to Operation Barbarossa has left a sentence fragment at the end of the lead. (Hohum ^@) 02:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Caustic, you were advised not to edit GA and FA articles, especially not their leads, which have generally been vigorously workshopped and vetted. I suggest you follow this advice, heck even I don't generally touch the leads of GA's and FA's, as they are generally in pretty good shape. I suggest you work on writing some body content for articles using reliable sources for the time being. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand any alteration of a FA or GA or any article is well, a slippery slope. I always make sure to tread carefully and accept valid criticism. I am more than willing to concede in my edits and changes. All the changes I make are in good faith. The articles I update even if they are FA or GA can change overtime and minor changes are sometimes necessary. I like to incorporate their impact in the year 2021 especially in the lead and ensure the sources the article references are not outdated or disproven. I thank you for your time and happy summer my fellow editors.

French Revolution

I undid your large edit at French Revolution for reasons explained in the edit summary. Please {{reply}} here if you need more information about this. Mathglot (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Caustic3. 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. 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 ~~~~}}.  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)