Welcome!

Hello, Usernamen1, andwelcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being aWikipedian! Pleasesign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check outWikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place{{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  -Ahunt (talk)11:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add editorial comments to article text like you have toBoeing 777. The accidents and incidents summary sentence in the article does in fact list a total of 6 hull-losses, 5 by accidents and 1 by criminal act (shootdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17). See these sources for more info on this:Av Safety 777 Losses andAv Safety 777 stats. -Fnlayson (talk)02:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are citations given but the citations do NOT reflect the article text. This is wrong and could result in failure, if one is writing a school paper. The citations are old but a notation in the reference list explaining that the number doesn't include the new information is the scholarly way. I'll look at it.Usernamen1 (talk)06:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The text reflects what the sources list based on Wikipedia policies. A criminal act is not an aviation accident, btw. -Fnlayson (talk)21:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is an incident.Usernamen1 (talk)00:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia practice is to balance truth and accuracy with the citations. Sometimes, the citations are wrong. If so, do not use it. If the citation is outdated, then caution. I know some say that wikipedia is not truth, just verify, but that is too dogmatic.Usernamen1 (talk)00:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you madeTemplate:Did you know nominations/Southwest Airlines Flight 345. However the article is not new, so it will not be qualifying for DYK. If you manage to expand it by five times it will be eligible, but that is a tough thing to do, given how big it is already. I also recommend that you make additions to the articleSouthwest Airlines Flight 345, to prevent it from being deleted again, to address the issues raised inWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Airlines Flight 345.Graeme Bartlett (talk)03:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also posted below, butGraeme Bartlett is essentially correct; the article would need to expand from 1978 to 9890 prose characters (it's currently at 2087) in the next seven days to qualify for the 5x expansion; I can't imagine that happening. Perhaps it will eventually qualify for theGA criteria and become eligible for DYK that way.BlueMoonset (talk)03:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission ofSouthwest Airlines Flight 345 at theDid You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneathyour nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!BlueMoonset (talk)03:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usernamen1, I closed this review yesterday—my post was, I thought, quite clear—yet you continued to attempt a review, so I have archived the page. Please do not post there further. There will be nothing to discourage or prevent someone eventually choosing the nomination to review; indeed, the new review will start on a separate page.

I appreciate that you want to help, but as I said there, it would be best if you gained at least a couple of months experience here at Wikipedia before starting a new GA review. I would even recommend finding a mentor to guide you in the process when you decide to do so. Thank you for your understanding.BlueMoonset (talk)22:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z33

Thank you for the notice. I would not intentionally edit badly or wrongly in Wikipedia so please let me know if there is an error that I made. I have only made 2 edits to the Trump article and they were not on the same day. I also am not very interested in that article and suspect that I won't even look at it later.Usernamen1 (talk)19:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a more detailed explanation: This notice is in response to your editing at the articleDonald Trump, which is covered by Discretionary Sanctions. That means that there are special rules in place for that article, and others involving American politics. The special rules are explained at the top of every edit page:"You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." When you added "real estate developer" to the lede and removed "politician" for the second time1,2, you violated those rules - not just by adding it twice, but by adding it without consensus. You hadn't been warned about the special rules in effect at that article; now you have, so be more careful in your editing there. Violating these rules can lead to a topic ban or a block without further warning. --MelanieN (talk)19:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. For a person who is "not very interested in that article" you have certainly proposed some rather sweeping change on the talk page! --MelanieN (talk)19:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, an uninvolved person can bring new perspective to a problem.Usernamen1 (talk)19:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thank you for your explanation. The Trump article is so disorganized and poorly written (sorry), not up to the standards of John Kennedy or Harry Truman or similar. I think I don't even want to venture into that water to edit there, at least for now.

I do caution you that adding "politician", which you have done, is not the consensus.

Part of the problem might be that there is no consensus. It might be like the GOP primary early on where everyone had 1-5% support. The 5% candidate couldn't rightfully claim they have the support of the GOP even though they had 5 times the support of the 1% candidate. This will need a lot of discussion. Good luck.Usernamen1 (talk)19:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usernamen1, your insistence on getting your own way at the Donald Trump article, and your refusal to accept or even acknowledge the existence of other people's opinions , are starting to get disruptive. You have been warned about the need for consensus before making controversial edits, and the possible outcomes if you violate the Discretionary Sanctions. But you keep proclaiming that things "do not have consensus" based on the fact that youdon't like them. You unilaterally removed "television personality" from the lede even though six people had supported adding it. Ignoring the extensive discussion that had already happened at the talk page, you tried to launch a new discussion with a whole new set of choices, most of which had never been proposed by anyone previously, and mostly omitting "politician" and "businessman" which had the strongest consensus in the existing discussion. I say again: this is beginning to be disruptive. You need to stop insisting on your own opinion and start recognizing that Wikipedia is a collaborative process where consensus rules. This is a warning, not a threat; I amWP:INVOLVED at Trump articles, and I participate there as a regular editor; I do not take any admin actions. --MelanieN (talk)16:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am making several proposals and do not simply support one. This is evidence of flexibility. However, I will take your warning to heed and introduce more flexibility without compromising Wikipedia principals. But please remember that your opinion does not automatically become "consensus".Usernamen1 (talk)04:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I closed your RFC in the presidential wikiproject because it could be worded much better, which even you admit. To avoid censorship and cutting off discussion, I added that people may comment below after the RFC but, in reality, nobody will.Lakeshake (talk)20:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. In theory, there is some merit to re-doing the RFC because there seems to be some minor bullying by editors that frequent the Trump article. However, I am not planning to re-do the RFC. I have disengaged from that article with the sole exception of trying to fix the first sentence of the article. After that (which could be in a matter of days), I plan to completely disengage from that article so that I can devote time to better Wikipedia articles. Maybe I should not tell you this because sometimes such news can make aggressive people more aggressive because they want to prolong some sort of fight? Hope not.Usernamen1 (talk)04:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you inserted your own preferred, two-sentence version because there had been "no significant objection" to it at the talk page. I figured that might be OK. But when someone restored the long-term stable, one-sentence version barely 24 hours later, you reverted to your preferred version, falsely describing it in your edit summary as the "stable version". Sorry. Your version had only been there for 24 hours, during which time it had been changed three or four times; it was not a "stable version". It would be OK if everyone else was OK with it. Since it appears that some people are NOT OK with it and prefer the previous, one-sentence version, you are not entitled to insist on your version. Particularly since your rationale for using it in the first place was no stronger than "no one has objected". I didn't see anyone recommending it, either. I have restored the pre-existing, one-sentence version since it appears you do not have consensus for the change. --MelanieN (talk)06:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no talk page objection to wanting a redundant version. There is no consensus for the bad version. Even if there were, consider this hypothetical bad version "Donald Trump is an Amerikan politician. Even if 10,000 people want it, it is a spelling error.

Besides, my suggestion is merely a compromise version. The use of the word "politician" is controversial in the article. But my solution was to support the politician side (even though I oppose it) by offering a non-redundant version. So do you want me to abandon the compromise solution and take sides against it? No, I am trying to resolve this last issue. As you can see, I have withdrawn from all other Trump article issues.

Anythingyouwant is a user that did not dispute my redundancy explanation and edited to maintain the 2 sentence structure but improved on it.

MelanieN, you contention that "someone restored the long-term stable, one-sentence version" is wrong. Someone mangled it so your friend couldn't fix it back. See the edit summaries. Finally, there is no support at all for a redundant prose. Nobody says we should do that just like nobody is for spelling errors.Usernamen1 (talk)04:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you restored it again, claiming that someone had agreed with you, and another person has restored the one-sentence configuration. It is clear that you do NOT have anything like consensus for your version and if you restore it again I will report you for violating the Discretionary Sanctions by repeatedly insisting on your own version. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Actually I see that you have already violated the 1RR restriction, with your fourth and fifth insertion of your version. I am going to ask an uninvolved administrator to take a look. --MelanieN (talk)01:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie has asked me to take a look, Usernamen. It's clear that your version isn't the stable version you claim, and unfortunately also clear that you have violated 1RR twice atDonald Trump,here andhere. If I'd seen that at the time, I might have topic banned you from the article. But it's been three days since you edited it, so I'm merely warning you. Please don't edit war atDonald Trump, and discuss on thetalkpage, where more editors can see your arguments and respond. Good Day's talkpage isn't an authority you can refer to, besides the fact that I don't even see how the discussion there supports your edit. You haven't touched the article talkpage since December 20 — not once while you were making all those attempts to put your preferred version into the lede. That's not good.Bishonen |talk12:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

See your talk page, Bishonen.Usernamen1 (talk)03:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been topic banned for three months fromDonald Trump and related pages. Please seeWP:TBAN for what "topic banned" means.

You have been sanctioned for disruptive editing. I see you just put in your version into the lede ofDonald Trump again,[1] despite my warning, and again with no consensus. Posting your opinion about it on the talkpage (in a section about something else) doesn't count as "discussion" — you're not supposed to re-add a disputed version without first getting consensus for it through discussion on the talkpage, as stated in the discretionary sanctions notice at the top of the page, which Melanie has referred you to several times. You say you had decided to withdraw from the Trump article excepting only the lede, so I hope withdrawing from it altogether, including the lede, won't be a great hardship.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as anuninvolved administrator under the authority of theArbitration Committee's decision atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described atWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in thelog of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read thebanning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may beblocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process describedhere. I recommend that you use thearbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.Bishonen |talk09:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]