Music314812813478

User page

I have removed a statement from your user page that is clearly offensive to large numbers of people. See Wikipedia:User_pages#What_may_I_not_have_in_my_user_pages? for the relevant policy. I hope you can see why this is not appropriate; Wikipedia is not a soapbox to proclaim your views, but a serious encyclopedia to represent scholarly understanding. Clean Copy^talk 12:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't like this "it hurts, so it should be taken down!" culture, but I guess I'll have to play along.Music314812813478 (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

We don't allow "Jews eat babies" either. It's a matter of bigotry, not hurt. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Template:Socialism sidebar. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Ditto with Nazism, where the same template was added. See the article talk page where this issue has been amply discussed; bring it up there if you feel the need, but the weight of authoritative sources is against relating the two themes. Clean Copy^talk 20:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Please join the ANI discussion at WP:ANI#Proposed topic ban for editor stating "I believe Islam is cancer"

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Doug Weller talk 20:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Mentorship

Hey, the thread at ANI has been closed, so you've been given a topic ban and recommended for mentorship, but you're not going to be blocked from editing. When you get the chance, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Banning policy, specifically the section on topic bans. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Mentorship to get an idea of how I can help you, and what the community expects from us both. I've watched your talk page, so if you have any questions you can ask them here or at my talk. If you notice the account "MPants at work" posting with my signature, know that's me on my alternate account. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much.Music314812813478 (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Sir, what does the part about my ban being "narrowly construed" mean?Music314812813478 (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Well for starters, don't call me sir. I work for a living. You can call me MP, Mjolnir, MPants or Thunder Britches. Or even "Hey Asshole", though I wouldn't recommend it (admins tend to get a bit itchy about that sort of thing). But to answer your question, a narrowly construed TBAN means that if an edit of yours is questionable as to whether it violated your topic ban, it is assumed not to have violated it. So, for example, if you were to make an edit to Racism that simply mentioned the Black Lives Matter movement (without being completely about BLM), an admin looking at it would be expected to leave the edit in place and not to issue you a warning or block you for violating your topic ban (thought they might warn you that it wouldn't be wise to push at the edges of your topic ban).

Most topic bans are broadly construed. This is because topic bans are relatively uncommon for new editors, who tend to be blocked for a day or so (blocks are intended to be escalating; so your first should be for 24 hours, then 48, then 72, then a week, a month, etc, etc), or just indefinitely blocked if they appear to be here for any reason other than building an encyclopedia (advocating conspiracy theories or political ideologies, for example). The point of a topic ban -as well as every other form of sanction we use- is to prevent disruption, not to punish. With more experienced editors, gaming the system is a real possibility, so "broadly construed" is usually appended to their topic bans. This means pretty much the opposite of what "narrowly construed" does; if an edit is questionable as to whether it violated the ban, it is assumed to have violated the ban.

The reason your topic ban was narrowly construed is because of the hope that learning the ropes here will allow you to become a valuable editor. The idea is to give you as much "room" to edit in as possible, so as not to hinder your ability to learn the ropes. So the best outlook should be for you to avoid religion and politics as topics, but not to worry if you want to edit about a different topic, but in a way that relates to religion or politics. But be careful about pushing at the edges; too much will be seen as you trying to game the system (what they call "Wikilawyering"), and that's a recipe for disaster. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC), what does the "appeal to six months mean?Music314812813478 (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It means after 6 months, you will be allowed to appeal the ban. Before that, any attempts by you to get the ban lifted will almost certainly be summarily ignored, and repeated attempts will probably result in further sanctions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Some advice

At Strange Matter you removed the notability tag. The article has no sources at all, so it clearly doesn't demonstrate that it meets our notability criteria, which for books are at Wikipedia:Notability (books). Do you see why you shouldn't have removed the tag? I'm also not sure how you came upon the article. Doug Weller talk 11:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Commendation and Concern

Hey, Music314812813478! You created an excellent article on Wisdom (personification). I have been doing extensive research on Wisdom as personified in Proverbs chapters 1, 2, 3 and 8. I look forward to possibly referencing your article and maybe contributing to it. Thanks for your work on this subject.

My concern exists in the segment of the article entitled, "Philo and the Logos". Christian theologians believe that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John through inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The implication that the term logos was "adapted" from a concept formerly created by Philos is unsubstantiated and a tad bit insulting to those who believe that John was inspired by God, not so much Philos. Because we do not have evidence of John being guided by Philos in his writings of the Gospel of John, can we avoid this insinuation in absence of credible evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camillegweston144 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Music314812813478. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Can I get unbanned now?

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC), Can I get unbanned now?—- Music314812813478 (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: in the future, if you want to get my attention, you can ping me using the template {{ping}}, like this {{ping|MjolnirPants|MPants at work}}. Note that the capitalization is important, so copying and pasting from this note is your best bet.
Well, to answer your question directly, probably not.

The reason I say this is because you've barely been editing in all the time since you were topic banned. The point of a topic ban is to stop someone from editing in an area where they've made frequent disruptive edits, while not stopping them from editing entirely. The reason we use topic bans is to give editors the chance to prove that they have what it takes to be un-topic banned. Well, you've only made 6 article-space edits since your topic ban. Nobody can say for sure whether or not you would become disruptive again, if allowed to edit in that area.

Let me give you some advice. Try to get in on a controversial topic that's not covered by your ban. The Fringe theories noticeboard is a great place to start. Look for discussions about articles that aren't related to religion or politics (so avoid big-brother conspiracy theories and creationism, for example), and try to help out in those articles. Be sure to always remain polite with other editors. Be sure to remember that you might actually be wrong, and be willing to change your mind in the face of a convincing argument. Be sure never to make any edits in order to prove a point to anyone, and above all: remember to use the best sources possible, and to stick to what they say as closely as possible.

Rack up a few hundred edits in those types of articles, and when you ask to have the ban lifted, those will be what the admins look at to decide. If you do well there, you'll have it lifted, because you'll have proven that you have what it takes to productively edit controversial subjects with a collegiate approach. But if you appeal right now, you're just going to be denied.

Final note: When you are ready to appeal your topic ban, you want to do so at the talk page of the admin who imposed it. It was @A Train: who issued the ban in their capacity as an uninvolved admin, and so you would need to ask them at their talk page to be unbanned. But don't ask now, per my advice above. I've pinged A Train in case there's anything they'd like to add. A Train, in case you need the reminder, the topic ban was implemented here.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

ThanksMusic314812813478 (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Music314812813478. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)