Emily Goldstein
Welcome
edit
|
Nomination of Donald Trump's hair for deletion
edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donald Trump's hair is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's hair until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. pbp 19:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Donald Trump's hair was speedied
edit@Emily Goldstein: see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Speedy deletion while AfD still open :( + Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 October 25 --SI 19:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Hi Emily, could you help with the wording etc here? thx. --SI 18:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
November 2016
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Kanye West are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- I apologize for my reverts on the 2020 election talk page. While I don't see how it is any useful or helpful for discussion, I am leaving it there; however, it does not belong on the Kanye West talk page. It has no relevance. And could you please respond to users on talk pages when reverted? Going back and forth isn't helping anyone and so is telling a user "Wrong" in every edit summary. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Kanye West for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- Could you please respond to my messages? I am getting tired of repeating the same things. Posting a video has no relevance on a talk page nor does it belong there and gives the impression of a forum. If you want it to be added, perhaps add a question to your message, such as "Do you think this should be mentioned in the article?" not by posting a video which isn't helpful and irrelevant. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- "He goes around saying 'Trump is my all-time hero,'" the Republican candidate said of West. "He says it to everybody. So, Kanye West, I love him."
- Trump added that he might rescind his admiration for West if the 21-time Grammy winner follows through on his presidential ambitions.
- "Now, maybe in a few years I will have to run against him, I don't know. So I'll take that back," he said.[1]
- He has been in the news recently for talking about the election during his concert and other things. Kanye and Trump may both run for president in 2020. So it is relevant to the Kanye West and 2020 election articles. Emily Goldstein (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Sagecandor. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Fake news website without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. LINK at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fake_news_website&diff=752297612&oldid=752297371 Sagecandor (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure why you chose to break many of the links in sources in this article by removing the domain names from many citations. Sagecandor (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Fake news website, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not engage in sneaky subtle vandalism by removing domain names and breaking links to many websites in citations, as you did HERE with this edit. Sagecandor (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)I realise going straight to indefinite sounds like cracking a sledgehammer with a nut, but I need an explanation of exactly what was going on with Fake news website before I can unblock. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Quite a pointy edit, indeed. I hope that you have not crushed Emily with your sledgehammer, though: she makes a good point by being pointy, even if it's against the rules and can only be reverted by pushing a button or two. SashiRolls (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- A regex similar to the one run on that page should/could be a pop-up option on every Wikipedia page (One might argue that looking at the bibliography would give a similar, though less complete, vision... SashiRolls (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Emily Goldstein (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Sagecandor gave me two different warnings for my first edit. I wanted to add Template:POV to the article.[2] [3] Emily Goldstein (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
That explains what you intended to do. It does not explain why you broke every single external link in the process. Unless you can explain what happened there and how you will prevent that from happening again, you will not be unblocked. Huon (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2016 (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.
- Huon I don't know how that happened. Even if you don't believe me I shouldn't be permanently blocked just for that one edit. Sagecandor warned twice for the same edit if you check above. Ritchie333 does that make a difference? Emily Goldstein (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Are you using any extensions or userscripts for your browser that may have caused this? NOTNOTABLE (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- I understand that this block might seem harsh. But if you cannot explain what happened here, how can you prevent it from recurring? You will agree that if your edits may inexplicably and inadvertendly ruin pages at random, preventing you from editing is in Wikipedia's bst interest. I am prepared to accept that this was some strange one-time glitch, but only under the provisions that you agree to double-check your edits via the "Show changes" button to ascertain that they do what you intend them to do, and with the understanding that a recurrence of this problem will see you re-blocked indefinitely. Is that OK with you? Huon (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Huon Yes I'm ok with that. Emily Goldstein (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I have unbloked your account. Let's hope that was some one-time glitch. Huon (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Huon Yes I'm ok with that. Emily Goldstein (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
December 2016
edit
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. 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.Ian.thomson (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- You are on the edge of a topic ban. Your behavior at Talk:Comet Ping Pong is not in accordance with expected standards of conduct on Wikipedia. If this recurs you may be blocked or restricted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for attacks on living persons or on other editors. Acroterion (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Your edit to Christie's International Real Estate, could fall under the scope of the first set of discretionary sanctions: the underlying subject of the edit, Richard B. Spencer, is within the scope of people closely related to US politics. —C.Fred (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) and insertion of word "actor"
editThis insertion of word "actor" at this article appears to continue the post shooting at Comet Ping Pong myth by conspiracy theorists that the individual was an actor as part of a false flag operation. Please do not insert such conspiracy theory POV into the article. Sagecandor (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Edit warring notice
edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kek (mythology). 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- 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; 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. Kuru (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
December 2016
edit You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Christie's International Real Estate. 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- 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; 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. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en
wikimedia.org.Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).
Emily Goldstein (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
User:Beeblebrox My edit at 11:19, 14 December 2016 added citations to the "Criticism" section. My other non-minor edit at 12:05, 17 December 2016 was a revert and I did not edit the article again after that was reverted by User:C.Fred. If those edits were so bad, why am I now being blocked after three days?
- So to recap, I did not originally add the "Criticism" section, just citations, two minor edits, and a revert. Emily Goldstein (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have reviewed the oversighted material and concur that your block was the correct course of action. Your request does not indicate an understanding of the reason why the information was oversighted, so I am not confident you would not reinsert the material. Additionally, I endorse the comments below, and would need to see a commitment to significantly improved editing behaviour before unblocking. Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2016 (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.
- leaving this open in case another oversighter wishes to review it, but here are my observations:The time frame is simply because the report to the oversight mailing list took a while to get looked at. The revert you mention was edit warring to add back in material that had been repeatedly removed and has now been suppressed because it was defamatory information not directly related to the article's subject. The citations you added also did not mention the subject of the article. You and the other user who was blocked over this both were trying to make an article on an organization into a hit piece on a specific living person that you apparently don't care for. Frankly, the bulk of your editing seems aimed at point-of-view pushing, slanting Wikipedia content to better reflect your worldview. That is not acceptable. Re-adding the objectionable material is the primary reason for this block, but even if we were to resolve that issue, the matter of your relentless POV ushing and particpation in edit wars would still need to be addressed. Wikipedia is not part of the "alt-right bubble", or any other bubble. It is an encyclopedia and those who endeavor to distort it into something else tend to get blocked in order to preserve the neutrality of this project. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm no oversighter, so I can't comment on any hypothetical invalidity of the given reason for the block, but the rest of Emily Goldstein's behavior seems reason enough for anyone else to decline the report regardless of the reason given for said block. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
- Regarding a few things you posted that have since been deleted: you don't have first amendment rights on Wikipedia any more than we have a right to come into your house shout in your face at 3 AM. Wikipedia is not the government, it is a private entity.
- Also, if you send an unblock request to UTRS, you will need to withdraw any claims of a lawsuit before you can be unblock. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)