User talk:Rambo Apocalypse

Discretionary sanctions alert
O3000 (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to UEFA Euro 2021 has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 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: UEFA Euro 2021 was changed by Rambo Apocalypse (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.927448 on 2020-04-21T18:53:16+00:00

May 2020
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in being blocked from editing&mdash;especially, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the one-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.


 * You just violated the 1RR rule (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period) at Racial views of Donald Trump. I strongly suggest that you self-revert. O3000 (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 14:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
SERIAL # 14:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Partial block from Racial views of Donald Trump
To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating the one revert rule (this is a partial block), you have been blocked from editing for a period of one 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.  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." El_C 18:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Olive branch
Hi - I will understand if you don't want to hear from me just now, in which case feel free to revert or ignore this post. I just saw your last comments on the edit warring noticeboard, and wanted to say that I'm not your enemy, I wasn't trying to get you banned - when I advised you to self-revert, I meant that for your own good. Wikipedia does have lots of rules that can be difficult to navigate when you're new; it also has dispute resolution procedures that can be used when you're in disagreement with other editors at a page. If you ever want any advice on those, you're welcome to drop by my talk page, or there is always the TEAHOUSE if you'd rather speak to someone else. I hope there's no hard feelings, this is a stressful time for everyone without adding any Wikipedia-related drama to the mix. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  19:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, Like above if you don’t want to hear from me its fine. Like I was not trying to get you banned, I was just doing my job. I advise you to listen to girth or in fact any admin when he tell you something. Per Girth, I say everything he says. Again feel free to disregard this message. Thanks, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 20:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Same here. You will note in my edit a couple sections above, I advised you to self-revert instead of filing a complaint. O3000 (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't bear a grudge, I accept that a platform like this needs rules, you thought I broke them and another admin concurred so fair enough.

What I would like to know is what I'm supposed to do in a situation? You don't think I went about it the right way, what is the right way? What would the model Wikipedian have done? Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The first thing you should do is self-revert the edit I just warned you about. O3000 (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is zero prospect of that. I stand by what I posted 100%, it is the truth.  Perhaps you have an issue with that.
 * I assume good faith in that I believe you guys genuinely believe Trump is a racist (so do I by the way) and genuinely think you're doing a good thing by promoting that narrative as much as possible. Promoting his detractors' opinions so they are more prominent than his own views is so obviously dishonest that I cannot possibly go any further.  It's like asking me to believe that you genuinely think 2 + 2 = 5. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Hi again - I'll address the question 'what am I supposed to do in a situation'. Basically, it's a lot more talk page usage. After a revert, head to the talk page, even if you think the ground has been covered. Explain why you inserted/removed something - say 'I thought that in the section above, we had agreed that it should say 'blah blah blah'.' Users should be willing to come back and engage with the discussion. If they don't engage with you, or if they do and you can't come to an agreement, you should explore on of the dispute resolution channels. I already pointed you towards WP:RFC - that's a common one, there are others like third opinion].
 * What you shouldn't do is reinstate your edit - in whole or in part - after being reverted, without discussing it with the other person. You reinstated the POV tag that I removed before you approached me on my talk page. The best practice would have been for you to ask, on the article talk page, why I removed it. That is good practice for any article, but on a page with 1RR and 24-hour BRD restrictions, it is mandatory.
 * With regard to your final point, I'm not sure whether you are including me in your assumptions about what people thing about the subject of the article, but you are definitely going in the wrong direction in making, and voicing, assumptions about other people's motives. Nobody can't police what you think, but making comments like the one you have above is going to end up getting you into more bother. The usual refrain is 'Comment on content, not contributors'. What we think about any subject is irrelevant to any discussion - what we write in articles is what matters, and should be the only thing under discussion. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  07:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

August 2022
Hello, I'm Mr.weedle. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Future FIFA Club World Cup (China), but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mr.weedle (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages
Hi. I noticed that you created Continental Classic as a disambiguation page. Per the Manual of Style guidelines on disambiguation pages, next time please add Template:Disambiguation to the bottom of disambig pages and organize entries in alphabetical order. Best, #prodraxis connect 18:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)