User talk:XfDWatcher

Welcome!
Hi, XfDWatcher. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, welcome
And as a suggestion, you might like to disclose any previous accounts you have held here. Many thanks &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  09:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/William Pina. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Prohibited purposes includes making Project Space edits when you have another account that is your main account. You are obviously an experienced Wikipedian.  What is your history of Wikipedia accounts?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

CSD denied
Could you clarify why you tagged Reactions to Executive Order 13769 as an attack page? -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Reactions to Executive Order 13769. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:48, 7 March 2017 (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 notice boards.
 * 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.
 * Look at its content; don't decline it. If you scroll down carefully, you can see it has profane content (e.g. it contains the "BS" word). I would consider it too libelous/legally threatening for an encyclopedia, even if Wikipedia is not censored. If any admin thinks it is not eligible for deletion, I still consider it an attack page. XfDWatcher (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Several admins (at least 2 because i was about .01 of a second behind undoing the tag myself) don't agree with your take on this (or several other pages) you've advised are attack pages. It might be worth reading the section on attack pages before nominating any more like this. Amortias (T)(C) 20:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion was declined, since it is not an attack page, but a discussion of a notable event in US politics. Unreferenced statements can be tagged as such. Edits can be made within the limits of the sanctions described on the talk page. Nonnotable or inappropriate articles can be nominated for deletion at AFD or for merger. Edison (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You also need to read about libel and legal threats. For something to be libelous something negative must be said about a specific person.  For something to be a legal threat, someone needs to make a threat that they are going to take legal action against Wikipedia or editors.  This page does neither.  - GB fan 21:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

DS warning
~ Rob 13 Talk 04:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)