There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Vacant0 (talk)22:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more ofyour recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made toCentre-left coalition (Italy), did not appear to be constructive and have beenreverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with ourpolicies and guidelines. If you continue leaving claims in articles that are not backed up by verifiable sources, you will leave the door open for getting blocked. Also, please stop bringing up political leanings of editors (you have repeated called another editor Leftist). Wikipedia is not kind to such behaviour. Please introspect. Thank you.Lourdes07:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of31 hours for persistently makingdisruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read theguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Lourdes07:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply power hungry. You reverted myDemocratic Party (Italy) edit for zero reason even though it was properly sourced.Themanoflaw049 (talk)07:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about your source and my apologies for viewing the Democratic Party edit as a continuation of your seemingly mistaken edit on the other Centre-Left page. I have unblocked you and will not be undertaking admin action on your account for now. I would request you to ensure that your edit to the Centre-Left coalition party article should not contain anything that is not directly mentioned in the reliable sources you might refer to. Common sense does not trump verifiability. Also, please ensure that you do not have multiple accounts. Thank you.Lourdes07:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for admitting your mistake, I appreciate it. I see the other page has been blocked from editing for one week, but I have a proper source waiting when that timeframe is over.Themanoflaw049 (talk)07:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding the standpoint. If you need any help in vetting the source, please feel free to reach out to me. Requesting you also to not call other editors Leftists or to poke them. You seem to have some experience in good editing. It'll be good to see you collaborating congenially. Thank you for your patience,Lourdes07:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it gets frustrating when you realize there is a double standard at play. I made the edit to the centre-left coalition page because it relies on basically the same type of sourcing that the centre-right coalition page does; that is, the centre-right coalition was listed as centre-right to "far right" because the listed sources named individual parties and leaders in the coalition as far right, without calling the actual coalition far right. So, I just applied the same logic to the centre-left coalition page. But only one seemed to draw the ire of a certain editor. I would just love some consistency, especially between closely related pages.Themanoflaw049 (talk)08:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List the sources on the talk page of the article and get them to public view. Quote the exact sentence in the source that proves your statement. And if that proves your standpoint, I will lift the protection immediately. But you will need to first list the sources on the talk page of the article and then show the exact line (and not interpreted line) that supports your claim. Thank you,Lourdes10:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did toAntarsya‎, without giving a valid reason for the removal in theedit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has beenreverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please useyour sandbox for that. Thank you.Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk)15:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the sources referring to the party as left-wing are more than a decade old. Every sources referring to them as far-left are more recent. There is pretty clear consensus among sources they are far-left.Themanoflaw049 (talk)20:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take this discussion on the talk page of the article. You will have to show the exact source link and the exact line from that source which supports your claim completely (I repeat, it should not be an interpretation of common sense, but a crystal clear line which says what you claim they say). Looking forward to seeing the discussions on the article's talk page. Thank you,Lourdes06:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related topost-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated ascontentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics anddoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to ascontentious 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 special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should editcarefully andconstructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• 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 topicsprocedures you may ask them at thearbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topichere. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the{{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to articles aboutliving or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles aboutliving or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This messagedoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please seeWikipedia:Contentious topics.Acroterion(talk)01:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attack has been removed and you will be watched. Youdon't seem to be here to improve the encyclopedia, but rather are trying toright what you perceive as great wrongs. Your presence here is not a net benefit, and research has shown thatwhen people like you leave here (voluntarily or involuntarily), Wikipedia's credibility IMMEDIATELY improves. PingingAcroterion andLourdes --Valjean (talk) (PING me)15:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the exact same thing about you. You are on a crusade about anything Donald Trump and Fox News related. If you consider being called out on your far-leftism a personal attack, then maybe don't be a far-leftist if simply being called one is an attack.Themanoflaw049 (talk)17:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also the fact you call yourself Valjean is embarrassing. You are nothing like him.Themanoflaw049 (talk)17:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really curious about what inspired that personal attack. I don't recall any interactions between us. Please tell me why you wrote that. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)16:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at2022 United States House of Representatives elections in New York shows that you are currently engaged in anedit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read abouthow this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Dusti^{*Let's talk!*}18:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Themanoflaw049,

Please be more careful when moving pages. You should have a good reason to move a page to a different title and not have to move it multiple times. If you have questions about editing on Wikipedia or page moves, please bring them to [[Wikipedia:Teahouse|the Teahouse]. Thank you.Liz^Read!Talk!00:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblockedindefinitely from editing for persistently makingdisruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia'sguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion(talk)02:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

is closed.WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE, and has no place on Wikipedia. Thanks-- Deepfriedokra (talk)10:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, you did write to pray for genocide. Left that part out at UTRS.-- Deepfriedokra (talk)10:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]