User talk:SpringField23402

Welcome!

Hi SpringField23402! I noticed your contributions to George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

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

Happy editing! Dronebogus (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War

Per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War you are not allowed to edit articles in this topic area when you have under 500 edits. Please refrain from further editing articles on this topic area until you satisfy the requirements. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never edited anything on that specific page. SpringField23402 (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that you have edited, like Bombing of Borodianka fall under the scope of the sanctions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SpringField. You have continued to make edits to articles about the Russo-Ukrainian war in violation of the above mentioned general sanctions, despite not having extended-confirmed status, please stop or your account will be blocked. This is a final warning. You can suggest improvements to articles on the article's talk page until your account has 500 edits. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think I'm violating the rights to edit pages, how about you edit one of them. They haven't been updated in a long time, and they need to be updated. SpringField23402 (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for violation of GS sanction. 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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this was the smartest strategy to go editing pages on the topic after the final warning, but here we are.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey hey hey. Woah, who said you can block me? You're not even in this conversation! SpringField23402 (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, OK gesture, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Meters (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me add a reliable source? I don't know how to add links from other websites SpringField23402 (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the link in my previous message. Meters (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed page move

I notice you recently moved the article List of incidents and protests of the United States racial unrest (2020–present) to the title List of events during the Racial justice protests in the United States (2020–2023) without discussion. The move has been reverted by another user on the grounds that the move was not discussed. This page is a contentious topic and so you should follow the potentially controversial page move process and request the page be moved, setting out your reasons and discussing the move before attempting to move the page again. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another undiscussed page move

I noticed you recently moved the article Arson damage during the George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul to 2020 Minneapolis–Saint Paul riots and made a number of large changes to the content. The move has been reverted on the grounds it was not discussed. This page is a contentious topic and in order to make such a move, you should follow the potentially controversial page move process to request the page be moved, give your reasons, and have a thorough discussion before attempting to move the page again. Malvoliox (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My reason to move the page was because the article isn't even a list. There's no article talking about this specific topic, and I think there should be one. SpringField23402 (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There may be good reason to make a move, but there's a process to follow in order to move a page on a potentially controversial topic. I linked it above -- you can see the instructions at the potentially controversial move page. Generally, you put a request in and allow for discussion. After that, consensus may be reached that a move is worth making. There's a template to paste into the talk page linked on that initial page re: moving pages.

I'm personally not sure what I think re: which page should actually exist. You might be right, but there is a procedure in place.

~ Malvoliox (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did. Not 100% sure I did it right though, but I did my best. SpringField23402 (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Your recent editing history at Thomas Matthew Crooks 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted bullying

Do not EVER try and silence other editors on WP, as you did here. It's nasty underhanded bullying and nothing else. If I see you doing that again I will report you at ANI for administrators to examine closely. People's opinions differ on WP: that is absolutely no excuse for you to try and shut people up. This is your only warning. - SchroCat (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What ever you say officer... SpringField23402 (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]