User talk:Anonywiki

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Charles Darwin. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. de Bivort 02:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're engaging in edit warring on this article, reverting here, here where in the edit summary you promise to put a word back if it is removed, and here. Please note that if you continue this unproductive behavior you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia for a short period to minimise the disruption you are causing.

If a change you think is necessary is being opposed, please seek consensus through discussion on the talk page, and if unable to find consensus pursue dispute resolution until you are satisfied that the problem has been adequately addressed. --TS 20:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. You can still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not violate 3RR. Auntie E. 21:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the quick action on my user talk. Regards Tiderolls 04:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your "weasel word" tag from the "Exploitation film" page. You only tagged one specific example, and I edited it. You may want to take a look back at it to see if there is still anything objectionable. Personally, I thought that tag was a bit much; it appeared to be more of a careless wording than a deliberate attempt to obfuscate. There were grammar errors in that sentence far more objectionable than the choice of the words "could be", which were actually appropriate in the context.

BTW, I saw your note about the article being full of original research, and I don't believe that's the case. I believe that the original author did research it, and provided a bibliography, but didn't provide specific citations. The problem with this article is the way that other readers keep piling on, adding trivial bits and pieces, and turning it into a glorified list. Maybe the article needs to be frozen from editing by users who aren't logged in. I don't think the original author is actively editing it. Dementia13 (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. But fire, including candles and oil lamps, give off predominantly yellow/orange/red light, not blue like daylight does. - Hordaland (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that. And incandescent/fluorescent lamps also give off predominantly yellow/orange/red light, not blue like daylight does, rendering your point completely useless. The artificial light we have now is practically the exact same as the artificial light we had back then from candles and fires, which is not very surprising since they both rely on heat. It is different to sunlight that has many more colours because of all of the different wavelengths we receive from it. Anonywiki (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I undid your addition there as it was not

Hi John. I don't think there are any sources for that word anyway. You're obviously not from Ireland yourself or at least not from Cork or you'd know it yourself. I think it's sad that the old ways of speaking are being drowned out by the new Americanized ways of speaking, so please don't try to "academize" how the old people did and do speak still, or whatever it is you are doing... I don't know. I have no idea why you have any suspicions over it, you can ask anyone who has ever heard it what it means, without having an actual clue yourself what you're talking about. Anonywiki (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see. Please read

WP:NOR to see why what you are doing is wrong. --John (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

John, I dispute that it's original research because I didn't research it myself. Do you see citations for this word or all of the other words? Like it or not, much of Wikipedia is full of things without citations, a lot of the most useful information is without citations. Just because something doesn't have citations doesn't automatically make it original research. If you'll remember back, Wikipedia actually began without having any citations at all. Anonywiki (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line is that, in spite of

verifiable, else it will be removed. Folks who repeatedly add unreferenced or unverifiable material, are open to warnings and sanctions. That's the way it is. Sorry. --John (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

John, you are a Wikipedia clown and a troll. Please don't talk to me again, don't edit Wikipedia ever again and don't waste anymore of my life or of others. Anonywiki (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Hiberno-English. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. BilCat (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --John (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite repeated warnings above, you appear to have persisted in the use of

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Anonywiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I wish to be unblocked because I did not produce any original research. I agree that the article needs citations and would be willing to add that in. Ideally all of Wikipedia would have citations for everything, however that is not always practical or possible. I believe I have been unfairly targetted and singled out as a person to annoy and get into an edit war with by this "John", when half of Wikipedia (the most interesting half), is made of things that are known by lots of people as fact but have not yet got citations for them.

This user annoyed me by informing me that I was wrong, when I was not wrong, when it was he himself who was wrong, totally misinformed and clueless as to what he was doing. John would be allowed to delete a huge fraction of Wikipedia if had his way, and perhaps I will go and delete every single thing I see on Wikipedia that doesn't have sources and say that it was going by your guidelines. I don't know whatever irked John about my edits above any other edits he saw on Wikipedia, maybe I was just picked randomly, but I am seriously put out by it and believe Wikipedia should try to ensure people who waste others' time on Wikipedia are not allowed to help block edits and have others call them "inappropriate" when they are not inappropriate, the so-called "personal attack" is a separate issue. Anonywiki (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for original research; you are blocked for personal attacks. Period. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --John (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't post threatening (or any) messages on my page again John, we obviously don't see eye-to-eye.

The comment says "unsourced material will be removed on sight", that's what I did. If those are allowed then mine will be also. Anonywiki (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--John (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See note below.--Chaser (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Anonywiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I believe I should be unblocked because User: John removed the entirity of my entries, which were all correct, and it was commented (probably by User: John himself) that ALL UNSOURCED MATERIAL WOULD BE "REMOVED ON SIGHT" in the lexicons section. I therefore went ahead and removed all of the unsourced material in the lexicons section. I'm a bit surprised to see that User: John is an administrator, I made nothing but a few helpful edits to the page and he came at me saying that I was not allowed to add perfectly reasonable unsourced material that I know for a FACT while others were to the exact same section, and things such as "derives from sure" that they do not know as a fact and that I have often wondered if they were myths.

Decline reason:

The factual accuracy of your previous edits and additions, or lack thereof, is ultimately tangential (Also:

WP:POINT, in particular the fourth primary bullet point. - Vianello (Talk) 21:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

---

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.

Instead of reviewing this unblock request, I am taking ownership of this block. That John was the admin that blocked you has created distracting issues, so this removes them. This means that I am now the administrator that blocked you, and I am responsible for this block.

First off, we have some common ground. I do not think John handled the initial issues at

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Anonywiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Point 4 of the examples reads as follow:

# If you think someone unjustifiably removed "unsourced" content... * do find a source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in question shouldn't require a cited source * do not remove all apparently unsourced content on the page

I did explain to him why it didn't require a cited source. I made a number of edits and put time into making them. However User: John unrelentingly and indiscriminately removed all of the edits I made simply because I made them. He would not discuss his deletion of my edits, he didn't explain why my edits were inferior to other ones, he would not even allow some of my edits and remove others as he pleased. To me it seems like he is using Wikipedia and his administrator privileges as a hobby horse, telling other people they are "wrong" when it is he himself who is incorrect. Anonywiki (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That's all fine, even if John is misbehaving, that does not address your behavior. Please make an unblock request which convinces administrators that you intend to chaneg your behavior, where you recognize where you behaved against Wikipedia policy, and where you intend to change that behavior so that you would not be blocked again in the future. Jayron32 02:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

unblock|Thank you for your assistance. I apologise for making inflammatory remarks and for removing uncited content as a consequence of my own uncited content being removed, without genuinely being convinced it needed removal. In the future if I have a disagreement over edits I will endeavour to go through the proper channels to try to resolve it.Anonywiki (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I think this block has served its purpose. Given John's (weak) endorsement of the unblock request, I am comfortable unblocking. Request handled by: Chaser (talk) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Comment from original blocking admin

I wish to apologize to Anonywiki for the way I handled this. I was wrong to block this user as I was previously involved in what could be considered an editorial dispute with them. My rationale at the time was that these last edits (removing large parts of the article) were akin to vandalism as well as an absolute classic breach of

Anonywiki, one thing you could do if you still with the material you wanted to include is to re-add that material, with fact tags, and then start a thread on the talk page so that you and John can discuss it.--Chaser (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide refs for said other reviews? [9] thanks.

You are right, I should have provided citations. Anonywiki (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:6817023-chimpanzee-sitting-in-the-grass-and-looking-at-the-camera.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:6817023-chimpanzee-sitting-in-the-grass-and-looking-at-the-camera.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are required. Thanks.

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Sergecross73. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. While you may have issues with his vote, name-calling is not the best way to go about debating him on them. -- McDoobAU93 22:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning #2 on this- Stop with the personal attacks. You've done it again, right here. One more and I'm getting an admin involved. Final warning. Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to take what I said as constructive criticism and do not comment on my user page again. Anonywiki (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone "daft" and suggesting they not to edit is hardly constructive. This will gladly be my last post on your talk page though, unless I need to notify you of going to ANI or anything. Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:DavidHOzAu,he is right,you are right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.62.146 (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you're upset with the result of that AFD. However, there's a number of issues here, beyond what you addressed on my talk page, the most important being the simple fact that this person simply did not have sufficient

• Why are you complaining now? This happened 1 and a half months ago.
• Why didn't you participate while it was active?
• Why is your anger directed solely at me? I didn't nominate it, the decision was unanimous in support of deletion, and the Admin was the one who did the actual deletion.

Now, if you want civil discussion, I'll listen, but the second it degrades into insults again, you'll be ignored. Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the most important being the simple fact that this person simply did not have sufficient

===> I dispute this. There are plenty of sites including BBC if you bothered looking at the sources and video evidence of such events taking place. id Software and Intel (Intel Extreme Masters) are by any measure completely mainstream sources of information. Search youtube for "Cooller" and you'll see tons of videos, interviews, etc., really search there. The games and players to be on international satellite tv on Giga also. Just because the game itself does not seem mainstream to you does not mean it's not notable. The game still has a huge following with tens of thousands of interested people. Billiards may not seem to have much of a following, however try and pick on one of their pages and see the reaction you get to try to take it down.

The standard is generally that if they are professional that they get a page. Many other players such as

It should also be noted that notability does not dwindle with time. Videogames are still in a development stage. Quake 3 Arena/Quake Live is over 12 years old now and is still highly popular, but years ago it was the most popular videogame of all. People do not become "less notable" over time. Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary

Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.

As for your other questions:

Why are you complaining now? This happened 1 and a half months ago. Why didn't you participate while it was active?

Because I don't check his (or anyone's) page every day.

*Why is your anger directed solely at me? I didn't nominate it, the decision was unanimous in support of deletion, and the Admin was the one who did the actual deletion.

Because your vote comment seemed so dismissive and derogatory. One of the links there was from the BBC, which is obviously mainstream, and it seemed like you were voting and being sarcastic without any idea what you were talking about. If I went over the top I apologize.

Anonywiki (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There are plenty of sites including BBC if you bothered looking at the sources and video evidence of such events taking place. id Software and Intel (Intel Extreme Masters) are by any measure completely mainstream sources of information. Search youtube for "Cooller" and you'll see tons of videos, interviews, etc., really search there. The games and players to be on international satellite tv on Giga also. **I really can't make a judgement on any of that unless you provide some actual links to actual sources. Keep in mind that youtube is generally not accepted to be a
  WP:COPYVIO
  problems.
• The game still has a huge following with tens of thousands of interested people. Billiards may not seem to have much of a following, however try and pick on one of their pages and see the reaction you get to try to take it down.
  • This is irrelevent to whether or not his particular person meets
    electronic sports
    has an article. I'm not contesting that.
• The standard is generally that if they are professional that they get a page. Many other players such as
  Shane Hendrixson
  have pages.
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
    . Enough sources were found for him, so he survived his AFD. For a couple weeks there, for every 1 of him, another 10 had been deleted due to failing to establish notability. A different user went through and nominated a ton of them for deletion.
• Sports figures are presumed notable (except as noted within a specific section) if they:

1. have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics. 2. meet any of the qualifications in one of the sports specific sections below.

• • I don't remember the specifics, but a discussion was started somewhere, like the notability page for sports or athletes, and consensus was that esports players didn't qualify to these standards. You'll have to look it up yourself, but it happened. Another one of those things that wasn't my ultimate decision or anything.
• People do not become "less notable" over time.
  • I agree. The argument was that he was never notable, and the article was just never nominated or noticed before.

Above all, lets say I'm wrong on every account.If you're so worked up about all this, rather than non-constructively going about insulting people way after the fact, focus your energy establishing clearer standards for notability for esports, or go recreate a better sourced version of the article. I don't think it wold be this tremendous task, I don't recall it being very long or detailed to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 14:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• EDIT: Here's a link to what I was talking about. There is no consensus as to wherther or not the standards for notability for sports works towards e-sports. *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Statement_to_exclude_Esports_from_this_guideline Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that link. I notice that most of the people supporting the lack of consensus seemed to be more against esports being considered a sport, while the argument is not that it should be a sport but rather than it inherit the notability requirements from the article for sports people. People talking about athletic/stamina abilities conveniently forget about things that are obviously regarded as sports like darts or snooker do not have a great athletic element to them either, and many have even pushed for chess to qualify as a sport. As previously stated, I believe these players meet the general notability requirements anyway. Anonywiki (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great argument. But there's no consensus for that line of thinking yet with e-sports. Work on gathering consensus, then you could enforce it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have closed your request for a Deletion Review of this article (as per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 13). I've done this for several reasons. First, as you note, you did not discuss the closure of the previous DRV with the closing admin. I understand that this was due to a miscommunication related to their Administrator Review, but nonetheless you need to bring your concerns to that admin first. Your rationale does not highlight any flaws in the process, nor does it indicate that the consensus found at the AFD was in error. Rather, you point out reasons that the subject should be considered notable, which is not what DRV is for. DRV is not a second AFD; rather, it evaluates the first AFD. Since there was no claim that the AFD itself was flawed, there is nothing to review.

That said, the core concern about this article was that there are no sources that indicate notability as our rules define it - in this case, reliable sources talking about the subject himself. Sources that just mention him are not relevant for this requirement. If you have such sources, I'd suggest posting them in a list and then contacting the closing admin to discuss the matter. If your concerns are with the notability guideline itself, you'll want to discuss it at the relevant talk page (Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports), likely). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Moscow Times, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's due to copyright. The footage of the Youtube video are all owned AN news, which Wikipedia has not obtained the permission to use it. We have obtained permission however for the fan art. You are welcome to

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Vitamin C megadosage. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article
  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
  .

BTW, you are actually at

WP:3RR but I haven't reported you for this. --Daffydavid (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Please create the page or remove it, blanking doesn't solve the problem.Xx236 (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The

discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed, 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.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The

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.

--Neutrality^talk 17:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to thank you for leading me to see that Bernie Parham has made it into Wikipedia for his advocacy of 2. Qh5. ^^ Also thought you might like to see an actor you know in action: Talk:Tulsi Gabbard#Citing squarespace. But sssshhhh. Be careful to  Self-trout often with the Lodsilungur... SashiRolls (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised that I have filed an Arbitration Enforcement request regarding you here. Neutrality^talk 02:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will you reply to the statements in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Anonywiki? Will you accept the Wikipedia consensus about GMOs? If not, a topic ban seems likely. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anonywiki. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned for one year from the topic of GMOs on all pages of Wikipedia, with the right of appeal in six months

You have been sanctioned as explained in the AE request

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an

log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked

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 described

here. I recommend that you use the arbitration 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. EdJohnston (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The topic of GMOs is as defined in [10] to include "all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed." Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This action is now logged in WP:DSLOG. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As required by the procedure, I am notifying you that your appeal on

Hello, Anonywiki. 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

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)[reply]

Hello
I notice you flagged a piece I added to this page as "Dubious", but didn't open any corresponding discussion at the end of the link; so I have opened one here, if you wish to comment. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a right way to do things, and edit warring isn't one of them. --

@Anonywiki: I see six reverts: you've long since crossed the bright line of edit warring. Acroterion (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? There are six reverts both ways. You see six edits from me because there was no challenge to my initial removal of the uncited addition of the word "false" to the article. I'm not trying to argue for chemtrails, I'm arguing for proper description. In fact by the description of the source and the fact it's an actual scientific article I am 99.9% sure they would not describe it as "the false claim". It's 1) improper to state that and 2) that claim is completely uncited. Anonywiki (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An individual editor may only revert three times in any twenty-four hour period, and that's not an absolute right. You reverted six times. The lead paragraph summarizes cited content in the body of the article, and the falsity of the conspiracy theory is extensively discussed and cited in the following paragraph. You've been around Wikipedia long enough to know all of this. Acroterion (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anonywiki. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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

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)[reply]

Hello, Anonywiki. 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

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)[reply]

"tv.com" isn't a

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Anonywiki reported by User:OrgoneBox (Result: ). Thank you. OrgoneBox (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --OrgoneBox (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  331dot (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you felt the need to email me after two years. I don't recall anything about this block. I can only say that if you feel the block is wrong or otherwise invalid, you may make an unblock request. I won't stand in the way if another admin sees fit to unblock you. But, if you'd rather this site perish, that's your business. 331dot (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]