User talk:Campbell301

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. Again, welcome! Feel free to leave me an award or barnstar. Have a question just ask! I will help with no delay. TrackMonkey 00:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFL

Hey, I saw you editing a lot of sports related articles (specifically football) and thought you might want to join this. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 23:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of National Football League records (individual), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Derek Carr. 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) 09:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Country rap, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages PFE, Bottleneck and Dez. 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) 11:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Hello, I'm Strongjam. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Shaun King (activist) have been reverted or removed because they could seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Strongjam (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Shaun King (activist). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Strongjam (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Campbell301. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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]

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Hail Mary passes in American football, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rod Smith and Anthony Miller. 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) 09:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Your recent editing history at Shaun King 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.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Shaun King, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please don't remove other users talk page comments like you did here. Strongjam (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Campbell301 reported by User:Stevietheman (Result: ). Thank you. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Campbell301 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: ). Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Shaun King. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of National Football League records (individual), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Larry Marshall. 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) 09:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of National Football League records (individual), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Johnson. 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) 10:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of National Football League records (individual), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greg Zuerlein (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) 11:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Campbell301. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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]

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of National Football League records (individual), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greg Zuerlein (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of National Football League records (individual), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albert Lewis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

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 Arbitration Committee has authorised 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.

- Mr X 🖋 20:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not going to adhere to reliable sources then you're better off sticking to football articles. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2018 (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).

Campbell301 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I changed information on wiki for Breitbart because it amounts to slander and it is up to each individual whether it is "conservative" or "far right". Also, the only sources provided for the negative attacks are biased liberal sources. Any given individual can enter the same type of attack on the wiki page for salon, raw story, ny times, etc. and site a right leaning publication as the source. Breitbart is not a hate site such as Stormfront. That is why I made the edit and why I should be unblocked.

Decline reason:

You are blocked because of arbitration enforcement. You have failed to address your violation of sanctions here. I strongly advise you read over WP:RS and WP:V. You are free to believe whether or not Breitbart is "conservative" or "far right", but that's not the standard Wikipedia goes with. Verifiability, not truth. Once the block expires, please be significantly more careful with future edits. Edits to post-1932 politics of the United States are closely monitored and, as you know, subject to arbitration enforcement. Yamla (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2018 (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.

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violation of editing restrictions on the page Breitbart News, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Not a particularly good start with editing in the American Politics area. There's very little wiggle room in this area so every edit you make needs to comply with the relevant editing restrictions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Shaun King, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You inserted in this article the claim that King's birth certificate states that his race is white; I cannot find any documentation of that claim in the cited source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/08/20/activist-shaun-king-says-man-on-birth-certificate-isnt-his-biological-father/ - inserting unsourced claims about a person, particularly one that is essentially defamatory, is strictly forbidden. This is not the first time you have been warned about this. I believe that you have demonstrated an inability to edit Shaun King's biography in a manner that complies with policy, and should you make another such edit, I will request that you be permanently topic-banned. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following source lists Breitbart as "politically conservative. May I make the change? https://www.allsides.com/news-source/breitbart Campbell301 (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN, more disruption. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been topic banned for three months from Breitbart News and related pages. Please see WP:TBAN for what "topic banned" means.

You have been sanctioned for repeated violations of editing restrictions on the page Breitbart News.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, topic ban violation here. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another note

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 Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating your topic ban from Breitbart News here. This is a short block; any further violations will earn you longer blocks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 19:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your topic ban has also been reset to last three months from today. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Campbell301. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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]

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of National Football League records (individual), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dwight Stone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Hello, I'm Eagles247. Your recent edit to the page Marcus Mariota appears to have added premature information about a reported sports transaction, so it has been removed for now. The transaction is based on anonymous sources and/or awaiting an official announcement. If you believe the transaction has been completed, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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.

Doug Weller talk 18:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Doug Weller talk 18:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Your recent editing history at One America News Network‎ 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. O3000 (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at One America News Network, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is making an edit which I provided sources to support my reasoning for disruptive? Leftists hate facts. Campbell301 talk 14:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And now personal attacks? Doug Weller talk 18:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I supported my reasoning for why I provided informaton. If you are not okay with it, then you hate facts. Campbell301 talk 14:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Just reminding you you've been blocked for this before and 3RR is not an entitlement. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at User talk:Doug Weller, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

You're not new, why don't you sign your posts? Doug Weller talk 18:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I see you added this source for your change of "far-right" to "conservative" here at One America News Network and then edit warred without even an edit summary to keep your version in the article. That's crudely disruptive editing. That was your source, really? I see you insist above that you "provided sources to support my reasoning" (what reasoning is that?), and on Doug Weller's page that you "properly cited multiple sources which refer to One American News as conservative instead of far right". I don't know where those multiple sources are meant to be; you added one source (which does not support your change) and removed three. That was the sum of your sourcing; for your reasoning, there was none, not in the edit summaries nor on the article talkpage. You have been blocked for one month for disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 20:34, 1 April 2020 (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).

Campbell301 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Okay, you want multiple sources stating that it is a conservative outlet? Here you go. The Hill, Politifact, Media Bias Fact Check, The Wrap, Amazon, AIM, Washington Times, San Diego Tribune, and Amazon. Even liberal publications call it conservative. I followed the rules by providing sources. There are far more sources referring to it as conservative than far right. Fair enough or do the leftists running wikipedia hate facts. https://thehill.com/social-tags/one-america-news-network, https://www.politifact.com/personalities/one-america-news/, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/one-america-news-network/, https://www.thewrap.com/trump-allies-seek-buyout-of-one-america-news-network-report/, https://deadline.com/2020/04/coronavirus-donald-trump-one-america-news-network-1202898220/, https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/19/journalists-blast-one-america-news-series-giuliani-087893, https://www.amazon.com/Herring-Networks-America-News-Network/product-reviews/B00QSGLPXG, https://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/trump-backers-eye-purchase-of-conservative-cable-network/, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/1/one-america-news-network-loses-seat-trump-coronavi/, https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/story/2020-01-17/san-diegos-one-america-news-could-be-acquired-by-firm-with-ties-to-trump . Campbell301 | tålk 16:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Decline reason:

That's enough of that. Yamla (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2020 (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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Important Notice

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.

Doug Weller talk 17:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 09:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have obviously returned only for the purpose of persistent tendentious editing, such as here and here. Bishonen | tålk 09:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Well its obvious you guys don't treat conservative publications the same as liberal publications. And the Redhawks used to be called the Redskins. Campbell301 (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a good reason to change the name to the old one. And an edit such as this is only a hair's breadth away from being pure vandalism. Do you realize that The Gateway Pundit page is supposed to be an encyclopedia article? As opposed to an outlet for opinions about how Wikipedia treats different publications? Bishonen | tålk 19:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia is Fake News. Not an encyclopedia. You claim shaun king is black. GP and Breitbart are far right (but Raw Story and Mother Jones are not far left), and wont acknowledge the Miami Redhawks used to be the Miami Redskins. Smh Campbell301 (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Also, there are only 2 genders. Gender and sex are synonymous. Campbell301 (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]