User talk:BritishToff

March 2022
Hello, I'm Extraordinary Writ. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Adam Kinzinger have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Azov Battalion. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Im new to wikipedia. Am I banned from commenting again? BritishToff (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. You can comment, but you have to assume other editors are working in good faith. Your blanket statement was just not OK. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, I will. Thanks. BritishToff (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

American politics sanctions alert
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v  a little blue Bori 22:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Please don't use misleading edit summaries, as you did here. Bishonen &#124; tålk 22:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC).

Gender and sexuality sanctions alert
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v  a little blue Bori 23:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep sending me these vague alerts? BritishToff (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * They're not as vague as you'd think, and they're to formally alert you to discretionary sanctions in those topic areas. Administrators are permitted to summarily sanction misbehaving editors who have been made aware of any discretionary sanctions regimes active in the topic areas where they've been editing. —Jéské Couriano  v^_^v  a little blue Bori 02:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing vague about those alerts--disregard them at your peril. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Because you have shown an interest in these topics, and in a way that violates any number of polcies (let alone WP:AC/DS sanctions). You are being warned in order to give you a chance to stop breaking the rules, and thus continue to edit. Frankly you seem to be a wp:not account, but others (rightly per out policies) a warning you rather than banning you. Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Eastern Europe and the Balkans sanctions alert
(Specific text of the DS authorisation: WP:ARBEE; text in collapsible was superseded by the text underneath it.) —Jéské Couriano  v^_^v  a little blue Bori 03:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

MArch 22
Please read wp:npa and wp:soap, article wp:talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article, not attacking other users (no matter how indirectly). Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Info
Dear colleague, these kinds of comments are considered personal attacks and you could be sanctioned. If you have to raise doubts you can't do it this way. Try to be polite to other colleagues and find a collective solution.--Mhorg (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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:. Star  Mississippi  02:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If another admin finds contrition, no need to wait for me to overturn this block. However user seems to be here to push all the buttons, and not actually build an encyclopedia. Star   Mississippi  02:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Azov
Elinruby (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Unblock Appeal

 * I'll admit to being pretty suspicious of the tone of this request - it is certainly 180 degrees from the tone used last week (indeed, it's pretty different to the tone used just hours earlier) - but I'd say we either need to accept the request, or revise the template to indicate they can never request an unblock. Just declining it wouldn't make much sense. I don't see how we'll get a better one than this. On the one hand, it certainly feels kind of manipulative (clearly just saying what we want to hear); on the other hand, if it is insincere, I suppose we'd see that soon enough. , , your thoughts? Against my instinct, I guess I'd suggest accepting, with a close eye on them going forward, but I can also see how "clown" one minute, followed by "I promise to be respectful to my fellow wikipedians" the next, is too much to swallow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I'm not entirely sure how I'd reconcile this request with being a pronoun warrior but willing to give them a second chance if is. I will say, BritishToff, that if you are making a good argument without substance behind it, you will be reblocked swiftly and with a much tougher path back.   Star   Mississippi  01:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm on board. Either way, BritishToff will demonstrate whether it was a good plan. :) --Yamla (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You're unblocked
Hi @BritishToff. Per our discussion above, I definitely suggest you be cautious before wading into contentious areas. You'll have eyes on your editing so best to make them pleased with what they see. Star  Mississippi  13:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah yes I will, thanks. BritishToff (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Deprodding of Brady R. Allred
I have removed the tag from Brady R. Allred, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. Instead, I have started a deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Brady R. Allred (2nd nomination), which you may comment on. I have explained my reasons for doing so there. Thanks! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Having done which, I do entirely agree with your observation that it "contains lots of useless information and bias wording that is almost impossible to fix without removing 90% of the article". So the fix is to remove 90% of the article.  Alternatively, you could re-AfD, but that seems likely to yield the same result as before.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022
Hello, I'm Discospinster. I noticed that in this edit to Matt Walsh (political commentator), you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. 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. ... disco spinster   talk  17:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I already explianed that a lot of this Article was poorly sourced. The Daily Beast is not a reliable source neither is the National Review. BritishToff (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus about the reliability of the National Review. —C.Fred (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh okay. BritishToff (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Standard ArbCom sanctions notice
Newimpartial (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Minor Edits
I notice that a lot of your edits are tagged as minor when they are quite substantial. The bar for a minor edit is pretty strict. It is things like fixing typos, spellings and minor formatting. Adding or removing whole sentences is not minor. Please check whether you have the setting to mark edits minor by default set in your Preferences. If you do, I recommend to turn that off as it is far better to accidentally forget to tag a minor edit as minor than to accidentally tag a major edit as minor. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is BritishToff. Thank you. --Pokelova (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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:. ~TNT (talk • she/her) 01:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * So let me get this straight. I removed information sourced from the bias unreliable daily beast, I added that Vaush is far left which is basically true as hes an anarchist sociaist, I changed Prince Hamzahs article to reflect that he dropped his title, I added that Sepan Bandera is a nazi collaborator and mentioned that the russian RNU is banned and unregistered and somehow that is distruptive. You clrealy just want me gone because Im balancing out all the stupidly bias articles people have made on wikipedia and not trying to push my own narrative unlike other editors. you have not mentioned anys wrong I have done and didnt even acknowledge all the dozens of helpful edits I made to other articles but decide to ban me for adding clarification and de-biasing articles. I hope Wikipedia is happy about how they treat their new editors in the most disgusting way possible. You have IP bots that you randomly allow to edit their narratives into Ukraine articles but ban an established and potentially helpful editor who clearly isnt here to push his narrative. I hope you are happy since you have accomplished what you want by removing interested individuals form your platform and you wonder why wikipedia still isnt a reliable source for all when you continue to allow one sided narratives on you platform. BritishToff (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * also funny how wikipedia recommends articles for me to edit, then when I edit it normally, mods start swooping in and banning me. BritishToff (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The recommendations are automated and don't take into account the multiple discretionary sanctions advisories you've been given. The review of your edits, particularly in those topics—such as blanking all sourced material on a politician's views on transgender individuals, which hits three sanctions areas (gender, American politics, and biographies of living people)—is done by individuals applying judgment and experience. The block was done after an appeal to the community for enforcement of sanctions in one or more of the topic areas.
 * In other words, the community determined that your edits do more harm than good and that your behaviour is unlikely to improve. —C.Fred (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Speaking as somebody who saw the diffs that were reported, none of that was "normal editing". To behave like that, particularly after having been let off an indef block only days before, was only ever going to end up one way. I find the performative outrage unconvincing. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, daily beast is not a reliable source. I didnt mean to remove the whole section but the parts concerning the documentary which is actually real and not fake and is called What is a Woman. Please do your own research before calling me out on stuff. BritishToff (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should explain what a discretionary sanction is instead of sending vaguely worded alerts that I dont even understand if Im being sanctioned, warned or just some random automated message. BritishToff (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Competence is required. Wikipedia is not child care. Newimpartial (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should re-read this section of your talk page where the discretionary alerts, and consequences of ignoring them, are explained to you. I was about to put a gender and sexuality DS alert on your page yesterday based on your deliberate deadnaming and misgendering of a trans subject, but saw such an alert had already been issued just two weeks ago. Funcrunch (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Floquenbeam (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)