User talk:FrankBierFarmer/Archive 1

test of talk - messages, 18.5.2014, 16:25 (so you know now my time-zone)

General sanctions notice[edit] Commons-emblem-notice.svg	Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date. A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here. General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. ~ Rob13Talk 21:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC) WP:3RR[edit] Please stop restoring the same content in Douma chemical attack. You are now way past 3RR-limit. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Yes, please don't insert that material again without getting consensus on the talk page. See Talk:Douma_chemical_attack#NPOV_claim. And don't violate 1RR again or you may be blocked or topic banned.- MrX 🖋 12:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit] Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:BestHealthGuide reported by User:MrX (Result: ). Thank you. - MrX 🖋 12:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC) April 2018[edit] Stop icon with clock You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. 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:. NeilN talk to me 14:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Resuming the same edit warring behavior after the block expires will probably cause you to be topic banned. --NeilN talk to me 14:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC) 3 Eine Ziege für dich! on Douma chemical attack Boer Goat (8742860752).jpg It happened after my "blockade": Why are indepentent views (from official German state TV and 2 indepentent newspapers from neutral Austria) first distortet, and then finally removed without any notice? The balance of Wikipedia information is strongly distortet. Yours sincerely the blocked user "BestHealthGuide" from Europe. BestHealthGuide (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC) Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit] Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC) Dear Volunteer Marek: There is a discussion about your very severe editor warring behaviour in the following site. Is it you, who is discussed about here? --BestHealthGuide (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC) Do not post links to off-wiki personal attacks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC) April 2018[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames which give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy or request a change of username. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose. If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page. You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request. FrankBierFarmer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • filter log • creation log) Requested username: FrankBierFarmer (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log) Request reason: As recommended by user 331dot I have decided now to rename to a personal User name, not the one I used for 4 years now, that resembled an existing website. BestHealthGuide (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC) Accept reason: Renamed and unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request. Topic ban[edit] Commons-emblem-hand.svg	As you are continuing to edit disruptively on Douma chemical attack (example) you are now subject to the following sanction for one month: Topic banned from making any article edits about the use of chemical weapons related to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed. You may still use talk pages. This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the community authorised general sanctions for the Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. This sanction has been recorded in the log. Please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. You may appeal this sanction on the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page) and you may ask for clarification of the scope of this ban. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. --NeilN talk to me 15:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC) My congrats! I got the same just trying to add what state Russ media say on this story, which I believe is relevant and notable no matter how true it is. I learnt from 9/11 article that once you touch articles that deal with CIA ops, any freedom to edit ends immediately (which effectively works as a rule-of-thumb method to ascertain one): one is not even allowed to cite U.S. senators on the matter (e.g. see here). Of special interest are edit comments such as ″misuse of sources to promote a fantasy island level of ignorance″ (this is about what senior U.S. gov officials, incl a former CIA director, say, pointing to a very plain fact that if nearly all the perpetrators were Saudis, perhaps it′d make sense to look into a Saudi connection). Blatant rejection of plain facts, just like Putin saying about the Dubrovka gas that killed over a hundred people that it was "harmless" ([1]).Axxxion (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC) ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit] Scale of justice 2.svg	Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)