User talk:Oneshotofwhiskey

Leave messages here

Vandalism?
P.O.V. vandalism? You don't have to agree with every edit you see, but I hope you're aware that falsely accusing others of vandalism is disruptive. DarkKnight2149 23:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I got your message. I'm sorry for misinterpreting your original statement. I didn't realise it was referring to something else. DarkKnight2149 23:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
Hello, I'm David.moreno72. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, David Irving, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. David. moreno 72   10:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Yintan. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Ghostbusters (2016 film)— because it did not appear constructive. 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. Thanks.  Yinta n  17:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my bad. Slip of the mouse. I've restored your edit.  Yinta n  17:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.  Yinta n  17:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Archived

SPI round two
You really shouldn't have done that.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because Round One went so well for you Buster Douglas. See you at the SPI.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016
--UTRSBot (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Alert
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment
Hi Oneshot. I believe that the term "sexual harassment" refers to a situation in which the two parties are both employees or are affiliates the same company or school. I think the term is defined to mean unwanted attention or innuendo within a workplace or other institutional setting. Thus the actions described by the People Mag reporter would not be called sexual harassment, because she was not otherwise affiliated with him except as to the transaction that brought them together that day. SPECIFICO talk  19:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Dinesh D'Souza arbitration case request declined
The Arbitration Committee has declined the  Dinesh D'Souza arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 20:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You've been socking
I can't wait to see how you explain this one away.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Bye!Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Other than ADMINs or moderators, please do not write on my talk page regarding the above issue. Take it up with them on their respective pages.***

Whiskey, you've pinged me so I presume you're OK with my comment here. At the very top of Times' user page he reveals his approach to editing Wikipedia: "I do a better job of it than many of my opponents." Having seen him in action recently, that attitude pretty well sums up his behavior. It's as if he views WP as another online video game, similar to the many games he lists having edited. The problem is that he's continued his nasty attacks, ownership, and battleground behavior for almost a year after he was notified of ARBAP Discretionary Sanctions. It's perfectly clear that editing American Politics is not like wrastling primates in Super Monkey Ball or chasing the cute little cartoon characters in Sonic R -- but I'm not convinced that TheTimesAreAChanging sees any difference. At any rate, it's easy to lose track of whether one's logged in, what with the blurred lines between mobile devices, software, data in the cloud, etc. I don't see that Whiskey made any attempt to impersonate an alternate sockpuppet personality. I do see that Times has consistently used every weapon he can muster against his "opponents" -- his word -- on Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk  13:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice
Even though you can't defend yourself at this time, I am still obligated to post this message on your talk page informing you of an investigation into the possibility that you have continued your past sockpuppetry and block evasion. Say it ain't so!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked
__NOINDEX__