User talk:ExplosiveResults

Discretionary sanctions alert

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.

El_C 02:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi ExplosiveResults! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. I'm sorry you were not greeted before you received a warning, it may have been a bit less confronting - which is not to say that the warning wasn't warranted, just it's a pity about the timing.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

I appreciate your participation. As you seem a bit new here, I would like to direct your attention to some of our policies and guidelines. Probably the best and most succinct summary of what Wikipedia is all about is in our five pillars explanation. Specifically, all articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia. In particular, we are quite insistent on ensuring that any material added must be backed up by reliable secondary sources, as Wikipedia itself strives to never hold a particular viewpoint and only refers to those of others, in a balanced and neutral manner. Chris.sherlock (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Hi. Please be careful what you restore when reverting vandalism. Here [1] you reverted to a version that describes the killing of George Floyd as "alleged" and protestors as "domestic terrorists". Best, — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I am just attempting to prevent repeated vandalism.

September 2020

To enforce an arbitration decision and for improper editing, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours from certain pages (2020 United States racial unrest). 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.

Primefac (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2020 (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."

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).

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

Request reason:

My edits were simply removing repeated Vandalism. I did not notice that I failed to remove "domestic terrorists" from the infobox. Had I noticed, I would have removed it as well. I believe this block is unjustified. ExplosiveResults (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Once or twice is a mistake. Three times is reckless - and as such, the block serves to protect the project. When your partial block expires, please try to be more careful when reveting. SQL ^{Query me!} 22:19, 14 September 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.

I mentioned this on my talk page as well, but reverting vandalism while simultaneously introducing vandalism three times means at the very least the editor needs to take a step back and stop editing the page for a minute. I won't oppose another admin overturning this and unblocking, but I thought I should state my piece per AC/DS guidelines. Primefac (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except that I never intended to introduce vandalism of any kind. I simply did not notice it was there in the first place. I did not intend to put "domestic terrorists" in the main body whatsoever. In fact, I am not responsible for putting that in there in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExplosiveResults (talk • contribs) 13:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of my point - you were so insistent on reverting someone that you didn't even look to see what you were reverting. As I said, once or twice is a mistake (I've done the same thing) but three times is reckless. Primefac (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol

No, you may not refer to the mostly peaceful BLM protests as "BLM riots", and certainly not to those protesters as "riotous mobs". Please consider this a warning, and please look higher up on this very talk page for the Discretionary sanctions alert. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are attempting to violate NPOV. It does not matter if the protests were "mostly peaceful", a riot is a riot no matter which side is committing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExplosiveResults (talk • contribs)

Ignore Drmies, there's no wiki policy against it.PailSimon (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware. The discretionary sanctions was due to multiple edits of mine that did not properly filter out mistakes. Nothing whatsoever to do with language or terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExplosiveResults (talk • contribs)

I don't know what that means, but I'm glad you didn't continue this edit war. This "a riot is a riot", that's not to the point here. The BLM protests were protests, for the most part; nothing that happened yesterday at the Capitol can be called peaceful. You may not paint the BLM protests with the same brush you use to paint a violent break-in of the Capitol during government proceedings, and you may not simply equate all the BLM protests with riotous mobs. The other party is now blocked. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I called both riots. Regardless, even if I wanted to, I can't even edit that page since I'm not EP verified yet.ExplosiveResults (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what page you make these claims on. Don't go there. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never in my life have I seen someone getting so worked up over a talk page.ExplosiveResults (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try it. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What shall you do? PailSimon (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ACDS. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]