User talk:Archwayh

December 2013
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Benjamin Netanyahu has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Benjamin Netanyahu was changed by Archwayh (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.856511 on 2013-12-17T17:46:55+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Barack Obama
Thank you for your recent unexplained, disruptive reversion. In future, please discuss what you are intending to do on the talk page (there is a section on Cuba) before acting. The section was moved, not removed, to a more appropriate article. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Music
Hello, Archwayh, I have taken the liberty of readding the music userboxes to your user page. They were deleted and then recreated. Please bear in mind that it has nothing to do with your usage of them. - Hoops gza (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, you can find a whole list of music related userboxes at Userboxes/Music. - Hoops gza (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Archwayh (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

ARBPIA
Hi -- you'll want to be aware of WP:ARBPIA, in particular the WP:1RR rule. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Zionist camp, Dec 2014.jpg.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Zionist camp, Dec 2014.jpg.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Have some respect for our political process
An endorsement of a presidential candidate is an important matter. The citations on most of the Hillary Clinton endorsements weren't sourced themselves. Even inside of these articles, most of the names had absolutely zero detail as to the nature, time, or place of these so-called endorsements. Many of the ones that did have some detail were based on the signing of a letter encouraging Clinton to run. Again, that isn't an endorsement as the party nominee. To top it all off, these "citations" were published before other Democratic campaigns, including I might add Hillary Clinton's, kicked off.

It is June the year before the election. I know the narrative is that she's "inevitable" but there hasn't even been a debate yet. Not only are these citations not supported by fact but they are extremely premature in June of 2015.

You can find a more detailed explanation of how you, or some other Hillary supporter, is manipulating this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Political_wrangling_on_article:_Endorsements_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries.2C_2016

Keep it up. There is nothing I'd like to do more than take a spare afternoon and check every single name and citation. I suspect there are a helluva lot more names on there who showed some sign of tacit support but in no way constitutes an endorsement.

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) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please be civil: Here's the explanation behind the counterintuitive listing of Sanders as (I) in the Vermont article only
Hi Archwayh, please do not use insulting terms, when disagreeing with an edit. As a citizen of Vermont, I have consistently voted for Bernie Sanders, so apart from the tone of your accusations, they are completely incorrect. Please remember Assume good faith in others, as I do for you; it helps us all get along.

As to Mr. Sanders' party affiliation at large, it's settled—he's a Democrat—and this is properly reflected at Bernie Sanders. The reason that he is listed as (I) in the US Senate, is because that is the affiliation that he ran under in the last election and consequently that is how he is listed at U.S. Senate—Party Division in the Senate, 1789-Present. He has consistently caucused with the Democrats during his time in office. It is because of his listing with the U.S. Senate that I listed him as (I) in the Vermont article only. I have contacted his office to ask whether they are aware of that designation. Until the Senate re-lists his status in that body, I take that as official.

I will monitor this page, if you wish to discuss it further here, but it would be more appropriate to have this discussion at Talk:Vermont, where the above explanation already resides.

By the way, I trust that you are a "dual" citizen of Great Britain and Israel and not a "duel" one!

Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 22:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello User:HopsonRoad. First and foremost, I am an Israeli with British mother. I speak Hebrew as my first language -- and so I had a spelling mistake -- and thank you for your notice. As for Mr Sanders, I don't care if your'e calling yourself D or R (there are plenty of DINOs). If Bernie was, let's say, like that D senator from Alabama who switched party's affiliation in 1994 -- should we categorize him as D? (although he's a R). It's foolish. I don't care if some clerk in the Senate forgets to change Bernie's affiliation. It's Wikipedia, not the US senate website. He's Democrat, so please -- let it go. Archway (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply, Archwayh. You bring up an interesting question about DINOs. Was Bill Clinton one, when he claimed the mantle of "New Democrat" and edged away from the Great Society or would Bernie be considered one, having declared himself a Democrat in order to run for president and continuing to describe himself as a "democratic socialist"? In truth, the Democratic Party has a long tradition of including a broad spectrum of politics from liberalism to inclusion of Blue Dog Democrats. This is an aside that leads me to my main point.


 * In Wikipedia, it shouldn't matter what our personal political philosophy is, we are all bound to edit with a WP:Neutral point of view. Furthermore, rather than call one another names or say that another editor should "let it go", we should be helping one another achieve a WP:Consensus that benefits the readership. The place to do this is in the WP:Talk pages of articles where we take issue with something that we see. That is why I invited you to put forward your thoughts at Talk:Vermont. Your concern is a legitimate one that has been discussed at Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 4. I wouldn't make the argument, when discussing the official website of the Knesset or the Parliament of England, that it was the work of "some clerk" and somehow not worthy of respect. Instead, there is a legitimate confusion between the clear status of being a candidate for nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate versus the protocol for listing party affiliation in the US Senate, which might be resolved with an explanatory note within the article.


 * It would benefit each other, Wikipedia, and the world that we live in, if we spent more time thanking each other for our contributions than attacking one another. As to making typos and accidentally choosing the wrong word—join the club; I do it all the time and appreciate it when other editors help me out of my mistake! Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 17:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The applicable Talk page here is Talk:Vermont User:HopsonRoad 21:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Archwayh, you may want to go read No personal attacks. Your comments in the change history at Vermont are not appropriate. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I apologize for that. Archway (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I very much appreciate your saying that, Archwayh. Here's wishing you Happy Editing! User:HopsonRoad 18:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Please don't make edit summaries like this one. Even if you are correct about the conventions (and I have no idea if you are or not), the more pressing concern is that this statement reads like ownership. This creates unnecessary tension, and drives people away from contributing. If there is an issue with editing behavior at the page, please report it to this noticeboard for edit-warring or the administrator's noticeboard for incidents. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying, but this is how we work in Wiki. You can look at every other major politician or prominent figure -- from Chuck Schumer to Andrew Cuomo to Nancy Reagan. Archway (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. - the WOLF  child  00:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Archway (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump
What was the purpose of your recent change on donald Trump's page?

3 mistakes

1) you removed a source for footnote 2, a bot had to correct you.

2) you added a footnote about his political history where it's redundant.

3) there is no record of trump being a Democrat before 1987, it's believed that he wasn't registered at all.

Please undo your edit. Tritzim (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
Hello, I'm 331dot. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Angus King, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. If you have a reliably sourced ranking or determination of his political views and reasons for caucusing as a Democrat, it would be OK to add, but otherwise it is just an uncited opinion. 331dot (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I explained in the entry why I think you're wrong. His leftist-liberal positions (Obamacare, climate change, abortions ans same sex marriage, Iran deal, gun control) are mentioned in the entries, and are backed by sources. The basic logic conclusion is that he identifies more with the Democratic party. According to congressional ratings, he's more liberal than Gary Peters, Democratic senator from Michigan. Archway (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether I think he is 'leftist-liberal'(though being liberal is not a four-letter word any more than conservative is) or not is actually irrelevant; all that is needed is a reliable source. A link to an article that has one of these rankings you speak of would be sufficient if the source is reliable(a neutral POV publication of some sort).  I might also suggest that the source be placed in the main text and not the lead. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What about this source? REF. Archway (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems OK to me, though you shouldn't use it to draw conclusions; that's for readers to do. If you want to put "the website "That's My Congress"(or whoever runs it) ranks Sen. King as being in the 'Mushy Middle'" or something to that effect, then OK, but saying what you have been trying to is a conclusion. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, pal -- I didn't write he's a Democrat, because he's not. He's like Bernie Sanders. I just draw the basic and logical conclusion; if he's ranked (backed by sources) as a reliable liberal, than it is a fact he's closer to the Dems than to the GOP. I just want to tell our readers that he's not just independent that for technical reasons chose to caucuses with the Dems. There's a reason he didn't choose the GOP. Archway (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've put what the references actually state in the page. I am not here to argue with your opinion but it is just that- your opinion. It's a conclusion from the evidence that you see, which is not appropriate for any Wikipedia article. Articles are for putting what the sources state and not drawing conclusions. There are forums for you to advocate your belief that King is a closet liberal or closet Democrat; this isn't one of them. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not an interpretation that in order to get on committees he caucused with the Democrats; he would be on no committees if he caucused with no one. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * First, don't put words into my mouth. I didn't argue he's a closest Democrat. I stated a fact -- that he's a liberal. It's a fact he voted for gun control. It's a fact he supports Obamacare; not a conspiracy. Second, you're wrong. While it's true he'd " be on no committees if he caucused with no one" -- that's not a neutral explanation for why he chose to caucus with the Democrats and not with the Republicans. It only explains why he chose to caucus with any party. Clearly, he chose between the two parties. Archway (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's why the article states "The following week, King announced that he would caucus with Senate Democrats, explaining not only that it made more sense to affiliate with the party that had a clear majority, but that he would have been largely excluded from the committee process had he not caucused with a party." If you have a source where King stated he chose the Democrats due to his ideology, let's see it. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Overlinking
The usual rule (with tables etc being exceptions), is that names are 'explained' and linked only once in an article, not once in a section. WP:Duplink

Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. Duplicate links in an article can be identified by using a tool that can be found at User:Ucucha/duplinks. However, in glossaries, which are primarily referred to for encyclopedic entries on specific terms rather than read from top to bottom like a regular article, it is usually desirable to repeat links (including to other terms in the glossary) that were not already linked in the same entry (see Template:Glossary link). Pincrete (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not over-linking. I'm just putting the title "President" before the name, so will know who we are talking about. Not in every line -- but in every separate section. Mind your own business, please. Archway (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Mind your own business, please? … Go do something else, troll? Rather than pathetic PAs, can you point me to the policy that says we have to have the President Of The US identified in every section, but far less noteworthy people, places and organisations are identified once in the whole article. The logic is ridiculous and has never been done in any article that I know of and never has been done in the 3 or 4 years that this article has been on my watchlist (rather longer than you have even been registered here!). How many times does someone need to be told who Clinton was? Pincrete (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're talking nonsense. I see this in many articles. I'm not talking about *every line*, but rather in every *section*. Please, just put it to rest, and go make a useful contribution to this enterprise. Archway (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That does nothing to answer the question why you think the best known name on the article needs 'explaining' several times, but obscure people, places and organisations do not. That's because there isn't any rational answer, because it isn't possible or desirable to repeatedly 'identify' people and isn't standard practise anywhere. I came to your talk page in the hope of engaging in rational discussion. Clearly that is not your style. By all means report me if you think you have a case. I shall not return to your talk page, so 'name' me if you want to reply. btw my edit count is approx 10 times yours and my talk page has no warnings about ill-mannered comments and edit reasons, how about yours? Pincrete (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Marc Mezvinsky
Hello - a few weeks ago you said "I'm sorry, but I didn't notice that there was a vote deciding he doesn't deserve an entry -- b/c he clearly does." regarding this article. Actually there were two such discussions that led to deletion, as listed on the Talk page and as I pointed out when I did the redirect ("as per two previous deletions - no reason for separate article"): Articles_for_deletion/Marc_Mezvinsky and Articles_for_deletion/Marc_Mezvinsky_(2nd_nomination).

So rather than ignoring the history and just re-creating an article that has very little material that's not already in Chelsea Clinton, about someone without demonstrated independent notability, how about discussing it on talk? Tvoz / talk 05:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A "vote" with barely participants from 7 years ago doesn't count in my opinion in 2016. " that's not already in Chelsea Clinton, about someone without demonstrated independent notability" -- not true at all. Actually, since 2009 he's got married, had children, co-founded a hedge-fund (Eaglevale Partners, which has an entry), and earned publicity. Second, I expanded his entry, and added info that is not included in her entry -- about his education and business career. So I stand by what I said. I understand, however, why it was rational to delete/redirect the entry back then in 2010 -- because it was a stub and it didn't have refs. As I said, a lot has changed and he's qualified for his own page now. Archway (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton - "Don't corrupt the entry"
Hello, Archwayh. I saw that when you on Hillary Clinton, you said "Don't corrupt the entry, pls". What did you mean by this? How was I "corrupting the entry"? I delinked New York, Chicago and Illinois per the Manual of Style on linking, which says that major geographic locations should not be linked unless the terms are particularly relevant. The terms would be relevant in e.g. articles about related areas such as Cook County, Illinois or New York City, but are not really relevant as far as linking goes in the Hillary Clinton article. All three count as major locations, with populations of 19.75 million (New York), 2.72 million (Chicago) and 12.88 million (Illinois). Linguist 111 Please reply on the current talk page and ping me by typing    before your message as a courtesy 09:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Linguist111} I don't agree with you. Like I said. there shouldn't be a double standard (Obama, Bush. Sanders. etc). We always link at least one word (say, New York) in e template. But I also shouldn't used those words, although I think you were wrong. Better be more respectful. Archway (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE isn't a valid reason; those articles shouldn't be overlinked like that either. Linguist 111  Please reply on the current talk page and ping me by typing    before your message as a courtesy 04:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Zionist camp 2015.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Zionist camp 2015.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Please read this carefully
Majora (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Humayun Khan (soldier) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Humayun Khan (soldier) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Humayun Khan (soldier) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

RfC notice
There is a Request for Comment posted at Talk:New York Daily News. You are being notified as one of every registered editor who has edited that article in that past year. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Popular vote. 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) 09:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

NPA
You've been around here long enough not to launch personal attacks like this:. You've also been around long enough to know that WP:V means we cannot uncritically treat claims of the intelligence agencies of any country as fact. I can only imagine the uproar if we were to uncritically cite the Russian FSB as a reliable source for claims of fact. Well, we don't cite the CIA or FBI either on matters of fact. If you care to look at the talk page, you'll see that there is indeed an ongoing, vigorous POV dispute at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. I really don't see how you can justify the removal of the POV tags that indicate this. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there's no justification for what you are doing, and it smells Nunes-like. The entire US intelligence community states Russia interfered in the election -- there's nothing deputed about that that makes you want to change the headline. What may be deputed is how we write regarding the ongoing investigation into links between Trump team and Russia. Archway (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, in response to my asking you not to launch personal attacks, did you just accuse me of being a Trump surrogate yet again? "The entire US intelligence community states Russia interfered in the election." We can relay the fact that they concluded that, but we can't treat their assertions as fact. If "the entire Russian intelligence community" were to accuse the US of interfering in Russian elections, would you want Wikipedia to unequivocally state their accusations as if they were fact? I very much doubt so. You get the point: intelligence agencies aren't afforded the same credibility as, say, major newspapers. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow -- you just compared the integrity of "high confidence" assessment in the U.S. IC to the Kremlin's? I really have no words.  Oh, and other cyber firms confirmed it was Russia who hacked the DNC; are they lying, too?  And Paul Ryan, Richard Burr and all the Republicans who acknowledged it?  (Even Bernie Sanders).  And other Russian meddling from the past and current, like the one we are witnessing now in France, are also not true?  And the French intelligence is also not reliable when the accused Russia of trying to help Le Pen?  If you're not acting as a Trump surrogate, your motives may be originated from a leftist & pro-Russian stance -- bc anybody knows it happened.  Your version of "alleged Russian hacking" versus "hacking" will not be approved. Archway (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Wow -- you just compared the integrity of "high confidence" assessment in the U.S. IC to the Kremlin's? I really have no words." That sounds like an open admission that you aren't prepared to edit neutrally. No intelligence service is a reliable source (except to document their own positions). A few months ago, if someone had told me I'd be interacting with long-time editors who wanted to start treating the CIA as a reliable source, I would have told them they were fantasizing. Yet that's come to pass, and it's unbelievable to see. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thuyc, you appear to be in denial about your POV editing. You've already been blocked for violating Arbcom's American Politics restrictions. You're edit-warring those inappropriate tags, which several editors have removed. The overwhelming majority of the editors on that Russian article have voiced their dissent and concern regarding this POV stuff. Please step back and reflect. It's not going to be practical to attack every editor who points out this obvious problem. SPECIFICO talk  11:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Minor edits
Hi Archwayh. You may have noticed that your edit was reverted. The person reverting mentioned the fact that your edit was marked as a minor edit. It appears that all or most of your edits are marked that way, and that creates a problem. Your credibility and honesty are vulnerable, and such markings may make it hard for other editors to AGF in your editing, and that wouldn't be good.

I don't know how it happened that they are all marked as minor, because it usually takes a deliberate change of your settings for this to happen. Maybe you should take a look at your settings and fix it. There is actually never any real need to mark an edit as minor, so nothing will be lost, and it's better to not mark a minor edit as minor than to mark a potentially controversial edit as minor, because the last is deceptive. Otherwise, carry on with the good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer What I did was minor -- it was a minor edit. I just clarified that it wasn't only about electoral chances, as the IC concluded -- but also on undermining potential presidency. You know nothing about my credibility. Archway (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * While I did provide a diff showing that someone else mentioned it as marked as a minor edit, you'll see that my concern was not about that particular edit, but to the fact that all your edits are marked as minor, even when they aren't. I know nothing of your credibility, and my comments are intended to protect you from future problems. When a non-minor edit is marked as minor, other editors will begin to lose confidence in you, and I'd like to prevent that. I've seen it happen before, and I've been here since 2003. That's all. This is not an attack, but some friendly advice. Please accept it in that spirit. No response needed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Michael T. Flynn
Please immediately self-revert your edits that reinstate an edit that has been challenged. Per active arbitration remedies you must obtain consensus before reinstating a challenged edit.

And stop marking your edits as minor when they obviously are not. Politrukki (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Arbitration Enforcement request Politrukki (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Controversy

 * Separately, you're reminded to please not mark edits as 'minor' if they're making substantive changes to an article. For reference, minor edits might be fixing a typo. Adding a source would not be minor. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing a picture in an article is also not a "minor" edit; that's a substantive change. Please review WP:MINOR. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

AE request
Please see this Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Politrukki (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Controversy
To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your topic ban, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. 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:. 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)  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."


 * I am also extending your topic ban to six months for flagrantly violating your topic ban shortly after it was initially imposed. If you wish to appeal this, please follow the procedure in the section above. Until an uninvolved administrator informs you otherwise, any further violations will result in increasingly severe blocks. Please let me know if you have any questions. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, Lord Roem -- I don't know why I am blocked and why I can't edit topics related to US politics. What have I done? I wasn't aware at all that I'm not allowed to do this!! I did not check my user talk. And why was I blocked initially from editing US related topics? Tell me what have I done! Fine -- I made mistakes w/ the automatic minor edits. I'm used to edit everything w/ automatic minor-edit script in the Hebrew Wiki. I removed it & will not do it again. I'm always careful and explaining my edits. Perhaps the apparent biased User:Politrukki didn't like my edits, possibly for political reasons (or not -- I want to know why; and I will take that back i you'd explain why you did it to me), and actively worked to sanction me, w/out even letting me respond!  Here is example of FALSE edit by this user -- we now know from AP that Flynn is the major target of the Mueller probe, along w/ Mr. Manafort, and that this also includes Flynn's payments from Turkey.  This is the man who got me blocked?  And yes, I obviously made a mistake by not checking my user talk page. My edits re: Mr. Flynn were only on aesthetics and moving info from the opening section to its related sections.  However, I fully understand that after being sanctioned -- even if unjustified -- I should't have continuing to edit, but as I noted; I wasn't aware AT ALL about it. So, I will respect my block, knowing it was my responsibility for not checking my inbox, but I want to return editing topics related to US politics. Where can I solve this? Can you please undo this? ### Archway (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, I've reviewed the edits of User:Politrukki, who joined in late 2015, and the pattern is clear -- he's making edits favorable to the president and conservative causes (I'm very carful in my words; I could have gone further but that would be inappropriate). It's pretty clear why he worked to silence me. Archway (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You were sanctioned due to the arbitration enforcement request located here. You violated a page restriction about reinstated contested edits, along with personal attacks in edit summaries. Your response above continues some of the same behavior. The topic ban was clearly posted on your talk page, which you're responsible for reading. If you wish to appeal, you may follow the procedure outlined above. Otherwise, I'm not inclined to unilaterally remove it myself as there's no indication you won't repeat this behavior in the future. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I wish you'd unilaterally remove it (the 6 months, not 1): 1) contested edits -- I acknowledge the mistake and will not repeat it. I am a senior editor in the Hebrew Wiki & I know the rules. 2) User:Politrukki informed you about me & moved to sanction me based on 4 edits on Michael Flynn. All I did was legitimate, at least in my opinion -- in terms that I had good intention & didn't acted corruptly.  But apparently I should have reached a consensus before the change, so I regret that, & will not repeat it again. So suggesting the arbitration enforcement request was due to "personal attacks" is not consistent w/ what I know.  And oh, when I suggested that User:Politrukki is a Trump supporter in my opinion -- I didn't mean it as a personal attack, & apologize if it was interpreted that way. 3) What you just mentioned was related to banning me for 1 month. Okay. But you later banned me for 6 months bc I allegedly violated my my topic ban -- that's what I want to undo!!
 * See here: "Moreover, enforcing administrator reminded Archwayh to "not mark edits as 'minor' if they're making substantive changes to an article", yet still they consistently mark their edits as 'minor'. " -- as you can see -- I wasn't aware that I was blocked! I didn't visit my user talk page. Therefore, I urge you, Lord Roem, to forgive me and reinstate the 1 month ban. Then, I can appeal on the topics that got me banned in the first place, and not bc of the unfortunate circumstances that made you block me for 6 months. Hope you can come through my request. My apologies about all of this -- had I knew about my ban, I wouldn't have violated it -- it also doesn't make sense; to risk yourself for minor edits on Michael Steele/Dossier? Archway (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Lord Roem, you still haven't rescinded my unjustified 6-months ban. It was done without my ability to respond, so that I was "punished" for not honoring a ban that I wasn't even aware I'm under.  This is not the right way to operate. I hereby ask you again to rescind this ban & restore the 1-month one.  Please -- you get me.  I don't want to pick an unnecessary fight w/ you & to appeal.  Think: does it make sense to wittingly violate a ban for just handful of minor edits that were committed Friday morning?  I didn't know about it! Archway (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Archwayh, I'm going to take you at your word that you genuinely didn't see the topic ban imposed on you. This is impossible for me to verify and you're expected to check your talk page for important notices, but I think you now get the message. The topic ban will remain in place for the reasons discussed above (personal attacks in edit summaries, violating clearly-imposed page restrictions). You're free to appeal the 6 month topic ban on the AE noticeboard if you wish. Please keep in mind that, while I'm unblocking you for time served, your topic ban remains in place. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Lord Roem Thank you, I'm planning to appeal, but I hope it's OK that I'm commenting on talk pages on this topic on US politics -- as long as this is not editing in the actual page. Archway (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please note you're also banned from participating on talk pages as part of your topic ban. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Lord Roem Oh, I'm sorry. It seems unfortunate, bc I'm not voting, editing or influencing articles in any way, shape or form.  But I understand, although I regret it deeply bc I want to express my oponion.  I'll appeal. Archway (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your topic ban, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. 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:. 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.  Sandstein  19:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)  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."

Orphaned non-free image File:CIS movement.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:CIS movement.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

AI Editing
Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Should you have a problem with a particular editor, I recommend that editor's talk page as a first port of call, edit summary accusations are not that useful or helpful in resolving disputes. Just a suggestion. Selfstudier (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Vitamin A reverted
Medical/health articles require that references comply with WP:MEDRS. Review articles about human research are acceptable, but not articles or review articles based on animal research. David notMD (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * David notMD, It was done on mice, who have a lot of similarities to humans, while also differences. According to this researcher, the conclusion points to *human brain* (his words). But in any case, and while it's definitely true more research is needed on humans, and while many people reported a mental change after taking vitamin A, WP:MEDRS allows me to include this source, but just to state that the experiment is not necessarily true for humans. Archway (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you intend to re-add this content, I recommend it be within the Research section versus the Lead, and that the text be clear that the reference is about animal research. David notMD (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * David notMD, I don't understand where, exactly, do you want me to place it. Can you help me? Anyway, this is what I want to add, based on other analogies (the boldness is only for this page): "Animal research (on mice), which is pre-clinical, also found vitamin A to have an effect on brain areas responsible for memory and learning. Archway (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I still disagree with whether this belongs in the article, but if anywhere, Section 11 (Research)) is in my opinion an appropriate place for a new subsection about Brain function. With no mention in the Lead. David notMD (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

1RR
You violated the 1RR at Tomb of Samuel‎‎, please self-revert or you may be reported and potentially sanctioned.  nableezy  - 19:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You, nableezy, violated many policies of Wikipedia, including your curses, personal attacks, expanding non-relevant information for political reasons, and above all -- violating Wiki's policy of precedent, by forcing your politically biased information on a settled entry, without a community vote. Should you not stop, you will be the one who would get sanctioned. Some will argue your motives may stem from depression -- it's not my job to decide, but I do know you're consistency violating Wikipedia's policies for a personal extreme pro-Palestinian agenda.  I will say this: it won't work in the long-run. Biased motives will not succeed forever, even when you and me won't be here anymore Archway (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sooooo, not going to self-revert?  nableezy  - 21:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

December 2022
 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:. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)