User talk:The unrelated kinsman

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Comanche Springs may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The unrelated kinsman! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Texas Historical Marker is not copyrighted material. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The unrelated kinsman. You have new messages at Draft talk:Comanche Springs.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi The unrelated kinsman! You created a thread called Comanche Springs is a real place, and it deserves a Wikipedia page at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Delivered by Muninnbot, an automated account. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The unrelated kinsman. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Comanche Springs".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- MrX 🖋 22:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers#Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers The unrelated kinsman (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He’s not being ‘bitey’. Editors are required to post these notices to the talk page of any new editor in these topic areas, so as to make them aware of the discretionary sanctions placed on those topics. We do it for regular well-established users, and even place them on the talk pages of users actively editing in those topic areas if it’s been over a year since they last received one. I assure you, you’re not being singled out. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Symmachus Auxiliarus. No biggie. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome. Happy to help. I’ve suggested before making the intent of such a post a bit clearer (beyond the initial sentence), but the legalese is important if sanctions are to be imposed. Unfortunately, most people don’t read the banners at the top of a talk page, so this is usually a surprise to them, and most interpret it as you did. We could do better. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I thought I was being sanctioned because there are some articles I can’t edit. True/not true? Thanks, The unrelated kinsman (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. It’s just a notice. Read the notices carefully. Basically it’s saying that those editing the article are on “thin ice”, and an administrator can sanction someone who’s seen as unproductive unilaterally. These came about due to a number of bad actors and POV warriors who tried to force their point of view. Just about any touchy subject is governed by these rules. The articles about the Palestinian/Arab/Israeli conflict are the most severe (so far as I know), but Eastern Europe and pseudoscience articles (from homeopathy to creationism) also have similar discretionary sanctions. But no, you’re not under any sanctions. It’s basically a warning to “tread lightly” and “don’t start a fight, or continue one”. As I said, I get why people are confused about this. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, but there are still articles I can’t edit. Can you explain? Thanks, The unrelated kinsman (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are different levels of protection afforded to certain articles, specifically those which attract a certain amount of disruptive editing. It’s essentially a preventative measure; otherwise, editors spend an inordinate amount of time cleaning up “messes”. The most common is “extended protection”, which means that editors below a certain number of edits are unable to edit it directly, and need to make specific edit requests. There are more severe forms of protection that require pending changes to be reviewed, and/or general consensus on edits. I can’t be more specific without knowing what articles you’re specifically referring to. Several articles in the American Politics topic area are protected due to people pushing conspiracy theories, and other issues. If you see an FAQ at the top of an article talk page, that’s a good indicator that the article has been subject to various forms of abuse; they exist because the same issues are brought up over and over, and answering the same questions repeatedly has become a time sink to the active editors. If you provide the names of specific articles, I can likely tell you what form of protection it has. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your efforts helping me. To summarize, I need more edits to prove I’m not some bad actor or POV warrior. I get that. How do I make specific edit requests? I’ve been wanting to add just one word to this one article... The unrelated kinsman (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Most of my work on Wikipedia has been on Articles for Creation, and helping new editors. It’s less stressful, and it’s rewarding to help people committed to the ideals of universal, accessible knowledge learn the ropes. Either people take the advice or they don’t; it’s a bit more black and white than content editing in contentious areas with conflicting point of views.

That being said, I’m honestly not sure how to initiate an edit request, as I’ve never had that experience myself. I think it’s automatic with the appropriate page protection. To make a successful one though, you need to formulate it in the form of “change ‘x’ to ‘y’”, and generally provide a reliable source, unless it’s a copy edit (correction of grammar, spelling, et cetera). So, something like, “change the statement ___ to ___ because ____\”. They do need to be factual, NPOV, and rooted in policy, or they’ll likely be rejected. If you need to look over the major policies, my user page has a splash page that has a “quick and dirty” set of links to the relevant policies. The Wikipedia Adventure gives a simple tutorial on general editing. There’s a link to that on the user page as well. Let me know if I can be of any more help. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve been very helpful. Thanks, The unrelated kinsman (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are not very many articles that you literally can't edit, ie the software stops you, and those are mainly in the Arab-Israeli conflict area. Do you actually mean that your edits are being removed (what we call "reverted")? If so, ask on the article talk page. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for wanting to improve Wikipedia. But you may notice that your addition to the article Trump–Russia dossier has been removed, twice, by different people. The reason for that is 1) what you want to insert is controversial and expressing a particular point of view rather than neutral as Wikipedia requires, and 2) the sources you cited are not factual reporting; they are all commentary or opinion. We can’t cite opinion or commentary writing as a basis for factual statements. You shouldn’t add it again, but if you want to discuss it, or try to come up with a different wording that would be acceptable, use the article’s talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MelanieN. I appreciate you taking the time. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to talk:Carter_Page, moved to talk:Carter_Page

Your recent editing history at Serious Fraud Office (United Kingdom) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit 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 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went to talk:Serious Fraud Office (United Kingdom) and didn’t see your discussion there. You reverted my edit. Why wouldn’t you start a discussion explaining your reasons? The unrelated kinsman (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you accuse me of edit warring after ONE revert on my part? ONE revert! Why are you wrongfully accusing me? Why are you bullying me? The unrelated kinsman (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing is happening at Carter Page. Kinsman, you are adding WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH content to several articles. It needs to stop. Use the talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 04:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I used the talk page. After telling you I was going to add RS citations and resubmit my edit, and receiving no additional responses, I assumed it was ok to continue. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]