User talk:Aceruss
November 2016
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to David Dinkins have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Shabazz--- Listen all I did was CORRECT falsehoods, and I will continue to do so.
Aceruss, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi Aceruss! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC) |
November 2016
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Rudy Giuliani. Bbb23 (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.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.
Materialscientist (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
December 2016
Your recent editing history at Rudy Giuliani shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. General Ization Talk 04:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Crime in New York City. 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. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted this once again. There are a few problems with this edit. First off, an image ([1]) is not an ideal source. It would be better to cite the actual article in question, not just the headline, presuming it's from a
I strongly encourage you to take to the article talk page before adding this information again. Wikipedia works on
]- Please use the article's talk page to discuss your proposed changes to the article. Try to build consensus for your proposed changes instead of edit-warring. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't personalize this. If you wish to rewrite the article to say the exact opposite of what it currently says -- which is supported by sources -- use the article's talk page to discuss your proposed changes and try to build WP:BALANCE.
- I, too, lived in New York during the Giuliani years, and the Dinkins years, and the Koch years, and the Beame years, etc. Let's reminisce sometime. Or not. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 20:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't personalize this. If you wish to rewrite the article to say the exact opposite of what it currently says -- which is supported by sources -- use the article's talk page to discuss your proposed changes and try to build
I lived in NYC and surrounding area from the 60s until just before 9/11. The lines I replaced had 3 sources, 2 were non-existent links and the 3rd was an autobiography which cannot be the sole source. Now in all fairness the same 2-3 lines about Dinkins appear on the same page under the DINKINS heading. There is no need to have the SAME EXACT paragraph twice in the same wikipedia page. My paragraph is supported by 7 good sources, not 2 non-existent links and a autobiography. I thought a reasonable compromise would be to correct the Giuliani section and leave the wording on the dinkins section. This would be the BALANCE you mentioned. I am not a dinkins hater or pushing a pov, he was a very nice man and made a great deal on the tennis for the city. But when it came to crime his numbers were terrible. Another point is on the bloomberg section there is NO mention of other mayors, on the dinkins section there is NO mention of other mayors. Why on the Giuliani section do we need praise of another mayor, especially one that is factually way off base and not supported by sources as I've explained. I'm writing to you directly as you are the one with the lasting issues on this but feel free to post this discussion on the talk page if you think that would help. And again happy Holidays.Aceruss (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia, the editing process works by consensus, not by horse-trades between editors on their talk pages. You've been advised repeatedly to discuss your proposed changes at Talk:Crime in New York City, not on your talk page or on mine. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
December 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Crime in New York City. 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. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes Shabazz STOP engaging in edit warring, you keep reposting FALSE claims that are cited with 2 broken links and an autobiography and taking down my work with SEVEN GOOD LINKS. You may be blocked if this continues.
- If you wish to rewrite a paragraph in Crime in New York City to change it from saying one thing to make it say the exact opposite, you need to discuss your proposed changes at Talk:Crime in New York City. What's wrong with what it currently says? Why are you right and the current sources wrong? Why are your sources superior? Until you start explaining yourself at Talk:Crime in New York City, I will continue to revert your proposed and unjustified changes. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I had already commented on the talk page so go ahead and get the ball rolling over thereAceruss (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
The responsibility is on you—if you want to rewrite a paragraph to say the exact opposite of what it currently says, you need to start a talk page discussion on the article's talk page and try to build consensus in support of your changes. Or you can have them reverted. Your choice. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure you will continue to make up your own rules, but I will continue to put up factual and properly sources articles, per wikipedia policy.Aceruss (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
January 2017
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Foxwoods Resort Casino, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Notification that discretionary sanctions apply to the area in which you edit
Please carefully read this information:
The
— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Edits at Rudy Giuliani
Your recent edits to Rudy Giuliani have been reverted. Your attempts to make this change have been reverted twice before (here and here). Since you have been blocked in the past for edit warring, you should know that you need to open a discussion about the matter rather than simply trying to force your own version of the article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
...Still waiting for you to discuss your proposed changes instead of edit-warring over them. Any time you're ready. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 00:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Rudy Giuliani, you may be blocked from editing. General Ization Talk 05:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
February 2017
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Rudy Giuliani.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be
]March 2017
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Rudy Giuliani. General Ization Talk 13:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Misuse of source
Your addition has been deleted for good reason. You added "....Clapper says that there wasn't evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump", but left out the next words "earlier this year." That's very misleading, because there is more evidence of collusion coming out. Clapper was not speaking of now, which your edit implied, but of "earlier this year." Be more careful. --
Famousbirthdays.com is not a reliable source
Hi Aceruss. I'm in the process of removing famousbirthdays.com as a source from Wikipedia, because it's not reliable (See
Hi Ronz, I liked the content of your page. I, too want to help build a factual and well sourced encyclopedia. Perhaps we will talk more and work on future projects. On this topic, there are several biographies where the birthdate says citation needed. Ok famous birthdays is no good. I would also like to know a good source in its place.Aceruss (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Russian interference
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.
Please stop reinserting the Clapper bit. It is contrary to consensus on talk page. SPECIFICO talk 03:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- There is a new interview with Clapper, who was not involved in the investigation at the time, which might interest you. You can read it here. -- talk) 00:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)]
I wanted to remind you about the discretionary sanctions that apply to the page (see above) and that you really should read
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Aceruss slow-motion edit war. Objective3000 (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Rudy Giuliani
I think you need to appeal to either
- Specifically, some of your edits (such as [3]) appear to be purely disruptive. As a result, other controversial edits you make on this topic are (quite rightly) being reverted. talk) 21:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)]
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Aceruss. Voting in the
The
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)
Reminder per the above
Please carefully read this information:
The
—SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The
—SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Your Giuliani sycophancy and Dinkins hatred
Keep it up and you will be visiting
]Disambiguation link notification for June 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Aceruss. Voting in the
The
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)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Aceruss. Voting in the
The
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)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review