User talk:Torchist

Disclaimer: despite my Wiki-name I am not directly affiliated to the Torch Network

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 13:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any official relationship with the Torch network (ie more than being a member/supporter)
We need to know if WP:PAID or WP:COI applies to you in any way. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Anti-Racist Action, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Basically, sources must discuss the subject of the article, and some of your sources seem to be discussing antifa in general. Doug Weller  talk 13:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hugh Buchanan
It isn't necessary to add the category "Scottish slave owners" to someone who became a slave owner after moving to the United States. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Francis Baring, 3rd Baron Ashburton, you may be blocked from editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nathan Mayer Rothschild, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antiqua ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Nathan_Mayer_Rothschild check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Nathan_Mayer_Rothschild?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Charles Dillon, 14th Viscount Dillon
Dear Torchist. Thank you very much for your recent contribution to the article Charles Dillon, 14th Viscount Dillon. Like you I have I have contributed to the article in question. I am trying to understand what you mean and I find it a bit confusing. I have read some of the supporting evidence that you cite and I understand that the 14th Viscount received a part of a compensation as a trustee for Dominick Trant who owned 128 slaves on a plantation in Montserrat. But does this involve him in the slave trade? You say "he was awarded a payment as a slave trader"; is this really supported by the evidence? I would have said he held the money in trust for the claimant but did not benefit from it. Whether he sympathised with the claimant seems not established. Perhaps I am missing something here, but could you perhaps clarify? There are other members of the Dillon family who seem to have been involved in slavery. Arthur Dillon (1750–1794) married as his 2nd wife Laure de Girardin de Montgérald, comtesse de la Touche, who seems to have been a slave owner in Martinique. There is still a distillery Dillon in Martinique. With many thanks again for your much appreciated and interesting contribution, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Slavery stuff
Hi,

Noticed you made edits such as Special:Diff/962197244 on various articles. This paragraph doesn't appear to be properly cited. The citation you've given does not contain this information from what I can see. I've let the reverts of your contribution stand. You may wish to gather additional citations to support your paragraph. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Slavery Abolition Act 1833. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Why are you using far right and anti-semitic websites as sources?
freedomsite.org and the American Freedom Party's website for instance. Please read WP:Verify and WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 13:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Reading all the messages above, it appears that you don't intend to communicate with other editors
That's not good enough. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and will not work if editors won't discuss their edits. Your failure to respond to my question about your relationship to Torch is also troubling and suggests that you might be violating our legal Terms of Use. So, I'm asking you to respond to some of the comments above and to my question. Otherwise I'm not convinced that you shouldn't be blocked. Doug Weller talk 13:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nathan Mayer Rothschild, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French Empire ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Nathan_Mayer_Rothschild check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Nathan_Mayer_Rothschild?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Anti-Racist Action, you may be blocked from editing. ''You need to use the talk page and you need to respond on your talk page, including my question about any official relationship with the Torch network. Failure to do this could lead to a block.'' Doug Weller  talk 12:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Anti-Racist Action. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. your edit summary called an editor's edit vandalism, despite the fact it was the result of a talk page discussion. Doug Weller  talk 12:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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:.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Please address the questions concerning COI. I have blocked you for a brief term, but if you resume edit-warring after it is over I will block your access to the article so that you can participate on the talkpage as requested.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * One more time - please address questions concerning COI. You're not precluded from editing, but you must declare any affiliations plainly and work within the confines of the conflict of interest policy.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * they clearly aren't interested in responding continue to reinstate their version. It's hard to see this editor as editing in good faith. Doug Weller  talk 12:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Similar problems at Rose City Antifa where they are edit warring and used an edit summary to call an edit by User:Aquillion "sneaky", a personal attack. Doug Weller  talk 12:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Rose City Antifa. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Doug Weller talk 12:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, can you explain this?? Torchist (talk)


 * You've been asked several times if you have a conflict of interest and have not responded. You are certainly behaving as if you have a conflict of interest. Since you're making numerous edits that you shouldn't be doing under those circumstances, and since you're not responding, you're blocked for disruptive editing. You may be permanently blocked if you do not respond constructively or if you keep ignoring other editors.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * This is incorrect. I have explictly confirmed several times that I do not have a conflict of interest and explicitly put a notification at the top of this talkpage to that end to clarify. There is no Wikipedia policy that says you cannot have a username and write about a subject. If somebody has a username referencing a song by The Rolling Stones and created and edited articles in that subject area, there would not be a COI either. Can you cite any diffs whatsoever which suggest a "conflict of interest" or "disruptive editing"? I request to be unblocked. Torchist (talk)


 * If you're going to just answer with repetitions of personal attacks you've made against other editors, you're a lot closer to a permanent block now.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * What I am referencing from the diffs is this statement by myself on the COI thread: "I have no direct affiliation with this organisation or its predecessor ARA, my interest in developing the topic is academic, so there is no "conflict of interest"." and this in bold font on the top of my talkpage "Disclaimer: despite my Wiki-name I am not directly affiliated to the Torch Network". I have addressed this question specifically already. Can I see diffs for "distruptive editing" please? Torchist (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. However, it's not really visible up there above the table of contents - you should put that on your userpage where people can actually find it. You are making a considerable number of undiscussed changes without consensus that still look like COI, and you've failed to engage other editors, while repeating personal attacks. You'll need to address your editing behavior and interactions with other editors before you'll be unblocked. I see no talkpage discussions of any kind that you've participated in. That's not optional when other editors dispute your edits - it's patently disruptive.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, I thought people would see it there as its right at the top. I have engaged with Mr. Weller extensively on the talk of the subject area in question for quite some time. Torchist (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You've made 12 of your 666 edits to article talkpages, none, as far as I see, since July. There is an open discussion at COIN, where several editors have expressed concern about your edits, beyond simply qurestioning tyour affiliation, which it looks like you did not address until three days ago. This edit summary isn't helping - Doug's not the only editor to question your edits.   Acroterion   (talk)   03:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You may be unblocked if you constructively explain how you will appropriately engage other editors and find consensus, without resorting to name-calling and aspersions. A commitment to prior discussion on talkpages is essential, and you really need to stay away from all the redirects to Torch Network unless you can provide explicit sourcing for those changes.   Acroterion   (talk)   03:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've a thick skin, but claiming that I didn't notify you about the COIN discussion is inexplicable - as is suggesting it's only me that has been unhappy with your edits. Doug Weller  talk 16:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Protestant Zionism
Template:Protestant Zionism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Fram (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Jewish slave traders has been nominated for deletion
Category:Jewish slave traders has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Jewish slave owners has been nominated for deletion
Category:Jewish slave owners has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Calvin F. Exoo for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Calvin F. Exoo 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/Calvin F. Exoo until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sundayclose (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think it was civil or polite what you wrote to Torchist on this talk page, either. Elizium23 (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that comment. I certainly respect your opinion and will take it under advisement. I must say, however, if you've looked at Torchist's comments in edit summaries and here I hope you agree that those comments are less than civil. I'm not offering that as an excuse, just an observation. Sundayclose (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited International Council of Christians and Jews, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British Mandate of Palestine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
Please explain your contributions using a descriptive edit summary. Changing information on Wikipedia (such as numbers and dates) without explanation, as you did at Catholic social teaching, may be confused with vandalism. Thank you. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

New religion templates
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your new religion templates Template:Methodist Episcopal Church and Template:Presbyterian Church in the United States of America each had misnested tag with different rendering in HTML5 and HTML4 lint errors, which are high priority lint errors, and caused this same lint error in every article in which they are transcluded. I fixed the lint errors in the templates. Please see how I changed these templates to fix the lint errors. Also, please see WP:Linter for info about lint errors, and consider installing lintHint as a tool for locating lint errors in the editor, especially if you are working on templates, where each error propagates to everywhere they are transcluded. Sincerely, —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Illuminati
Please add templates and categories connecting people to the Illuminati only when there are reliable sources proving that connection. For example, for Georg Forster, I'd like to know when and where you think he was an Illuminati member: he was with some other Masonic lodges in Paris; while in Kassel, he was with the Rosicrucians, there were no Illuminati in Vilnius as far as I know, and the Illuminati lodge in Mainz was closed before he arrived there. Please add your sources to the articles when you make such edits. —Kusma (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Torch Network.png
Thanks for uploading File:Torch Network.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mass of Paul VI, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page In extremis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Michael Strickland (British Army officer)
Thanks for contributing to the article Michael Strickland (British Army officer). However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 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 2022 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) 01:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"Turning The Tide" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turning_The_Tide&redirect=no Turning The Tide] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 23:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Your edit at Sugarcane
Hi @Torchist, i've reverted your edit to Sugarcane for the following reason: Unexplained restoral of removed content. Removal diff:  Nobody  ( talk ) 07:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Torchist I saw you reverted my edit with an explanation. For the future, please Always use an edit summary. Nobody  ( talk ) 10:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Nobody, thanks for your message. I mentioned a reason in the edit summary and have started a section on the talkpage of the article Sugarcane if you care to join me there. Torchist (talk) 11:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I've watchlisted the article and will join the discussion if necessary. Thx for the reply. Nobody  ( talk ) 11:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Claíomh Solais. Thank you. Dan Woinsaiker (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;as a sockpuppet of &#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/Claíomh Solais. 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. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)