User talk:Emily Goldstein

Nomination of Donald Trump's hair for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donald Trump's hair 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/Donald Trump's hair 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. p b  p  19:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump's hair was speedied
see also Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents :( + Deletion review/Log/2016 October 25 --SI 19:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Hi Emily, could you help with the wording etc here? thx. --SI 18:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Kanye West are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  23:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my reverts on the 2020 election talk page. While I don't see how it is any useful or helpful for discussion, I am leaving it there; however, it does not belong on the Kanye West talk page. It has no relevance. And could you please respond to users on talk pages when reverted? Going back and forth isn't helping anyone and so is telling a user "Wrong" in every edit summary. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  23:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Kanye West for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  23:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please respond to my messages? I am getting tired of repeating the same things. Posting a video has no relevance on a talk page nor does it belong there and gives the impression of a forum. If you want it to be added, perhaps add a question to your message, such as "Do you think this should be mentioned in the article?" not by posting a video which isn't helpful and irrelevant. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  23:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "He goes around saying 'Trump is my all-time hero,'" the Republican candidate said of West. "He says it to everybody. So, Kanye West, I love him."
 * Trump added that he might rescind his admiration for West if the 21-time Grammy winner follows through on his presidential ambitions.
 * "Now, maybe in a few years I will have to run against him, I don't know. So I'll take that back," he said.
 * He has been in the news recently for talking about the election during his concert and other things. Kanye and Trump may both run for president in 2020. So it is relevant to the Kanye West and 2020 election articles. Emily Goldstein (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Sagecandor. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Fake news website without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. LINK at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fake_news_website&diff=752297612&oldid=752297371 Sagecandor (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you chose to break many of the links in sources in this article by removing the domain names from many citations. Sagecandor (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Fake news website, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not engage in sneaky subtle vandalism by removing domain names and breaking links to many websites in citations, as you did HERE with this edit. Sagecandor (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing on Fake news website. 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:. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I realise going straight to indefinite sounds like cracking a sledgehammer with a nut, but I need an explanation of exactly what was going on with Fake news website before I can unblock. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Quite a pointy edit, indeed. I hope that you have not crushed Emily with your sledgehammer, though: she makes a good point by being pointy, even if it's against the rules and can only be reverted by pushing a button or two. SashiRolls (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A regex similar to the one run on that page should/could be a pop-up option on every Wikipedia page (One might argue that looking at the bibliography would give a similar, though less complete, vision...  SashiRolls (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know how that happened. Even if you don't believe me I shouldn't be permanently blocked just for that one edit. warned twice for the same edit if you check above.  does that make a difference? Emily Goldstein (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you using any extensions or userscripts for your browser that may have caused this? NOTNOTABLE (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand that this block might seem harsh. But if you cannot explain what happened here, how can you prevent it from recurring? You will agree that if your edits may inexplicably and inadvertendly ruin pages at random, preventing you from editing is in Wikipedia's bst interest. I am prepared to accept that this was some strange one-time glitch, but only under the provisions that you agree to double-check your edits via the "Show changes" button to ascertain that they do what you intend them to do, and with the understanding that a recurrence of this problem will see you re-blocked indefinitely. Is that OK with you? Huon (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm ok with that. Emily Goldstein (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I have unbloked your account. Let's hope that was some one-time glitch. Huon (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Ian.thomson (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You are on the edge of a topic ban. Your behavior at Talk:Comet Ping Pong is not in accordance with expected standards of conduct on Wikipedia. If this recurs you may be blocked or restricted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for attacks on living persons or on other editors.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Your edit to Christie's International Real Estate, could fall under the scope of the first set of discretionary sanctions: the underlying subject of the edit, Richard B. Spencer, is within the scope of people closely related to US politics. —C.Fred (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) and insertion of word "actor"
This insertion of word "actor" at this article appears to continue the post shooting at Comet Ping Pong myth by conspiracy theorists that the individual was an actor as part of a false flag operation. Please do not insert such conspiracy theory POV into the article. Sagecandor (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring notice
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Kek (mythology)‎‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Kuru   (talk)  20:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

December 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Christie's International Real Estate. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * leaving this open in case another oversighter wishes to review it, but here are my observations: The time frame is simply because the report to the oversight mailing list took a while to get looked at. The revert you mention was edit warring to add back in material that had been repeatedly removed and has now been suppressed because it was defamatory information not directly related to the article's subject. The citations you added also did not mention the subject of the article. You and the other user who was blocked over this both were trying to make an article on an organization into a hit piece on a specific living person that you apparently don't care for. Frankly, the bulk of your editing seems aimed at point-of-view pushing, slanting Wikipedia content to better reflect your worldview. That is not acceptable. Re-adding the objectionable material is the primary reason for this block, but even if we were to resolve that issue, the matter of your relentless POV ushing and particpation in edit wars would still need to be addressed. Wikipedia is not part of the "alt-right bubble", or any other bubble. It is an encyclopedia and those who endeavor to distort it into something else tend to get blocked in order to preserve the neutrality of this project. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm no oversighter, so I can't comment on any hypothetical invalidity of the given reason for the block, but the rest of Emily Goldstein's behavior seems reason enough for anyone else to decline the report regardless of the reason given for said block. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 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] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding a few things you posted that have since been deleted: you don't have first amendment rights on Wikipedia any more than we have a right to come into your house shout in your face at 3 AM. Wikipedia is not the government, it is a private entity.
 * Also, if you send an unblock request to UTRS, you will need to withdraw any claims of a lawsuit before you can be unblock. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)