User talk:Bachcell

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Bachcell (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Review full Blocking admin acting on false claim of User:TheGracefulSlick that sending a single copy of the exact same notice he sent me to another user who is an expert on terrorist and criminal attacks is "blatant canvassing". WP:CANVAS says it is ok to contact one or two editors, but not an excessive number. No warning was given, the spurious claim is that since a warning was given in 2010 [1] then no warning is neccesary now, and a 2nd strike 7 years later does not need a warning. Bachcell (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

The block has expired. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason you have a problem with a wiki link? That seems like pushing a POV? Your Edit: [2] 98.248.59.58 (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fort Hood shooting. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Grsz¹¹ 23:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Arrest of Two New Jersey Men Bound for Somalia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Arrest of Two New Jersey Men Bound for Somalia, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arrest of Two New Jersey Men Bound for Somalia. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please withdraw this abusive nomination. As a matter of fact we DO cover every terrorist wanna be if it's covered by world headlines. The fact that the Rs note it makes it notable Bachcell (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Cannondalerdr (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rigid rotor, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Pichpich (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have again removed the statements regarding facebook groups from Nidal Malik Hasan. It simply does not add anything to the article. There would have to be an exceptional reason to include this kind of stuff and I can't image that there is one in this case. If you think that there are legitimate grounds for inclusion, please raise them on the talk page. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 20:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who/Where says it has to be exceptional, as long as it is verifiable and notable? It was worth noting by the ADL, who are a notable group. It shows popular support on the internet for the attack and Nidal Hasan. What is the objection? Bachcell (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in the edit summary, you find all kinds of crap on facebook. It is not an indicator of popular support for anything. Of course groups like the ADL (who have a clear agenda) will report on anything and everything like this, however trivial, but that does not make it notable. This is really a discussion for the article talk page, should you feel that it really should be included. _wjemather^bigissue 08:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to the lead, dealing with the re-emergance of turboprops in the 21st century is only very loosly related to the Electra; the purpose of the introduction is to introduce the subject of the article and is not intended to describe events of no relevance to the history of the Electra. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Duane Reasoner, Jr.. Since you had some involvement with the Duane Reasoner, Jr. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Duane reasoner. Since you had some involvement with the Duane reasoner redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find independent reliable sources to substantiate the view that the website "focuses on conflicts in the Middle East critical of Israel and moderate Muslim states" and "publish(es) news critical of Israel and supportive of Palestine and 9/11 truth". It is entirely insufficient to point to headlines and stories from the Chronicle to support such a claim (WP:OR). _wjemather^bigissue 22:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid personal blogs don't meet WP:RS, unless they've been written by a recognised authority. Probably better to search through Google News and various published book searches, than the broader internet, if you want to find further examples of No True Scotsman. --McGeddon (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian anti-Zionism, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Pichpich (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Pamela Geller. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you might want to take a look at this discussion, which involves you. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Duane Reasoner, Jr.. Since you had some involvement with the Duane Reasoner, Jr. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Prezbo (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Dandelion Books , which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dandelion Books until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Milestone (aircraft), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milestone (aircraft) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has begun about whether the article LaFayette Center, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LaFayette Center until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Man Sentenced for Threatening Illinois Mosque has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to violate WP:ONEEVENT (and this title...sheesh).

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bachcell. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The discussion can be found here. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the offending comments. I am not sure if your claims of religious bias are for or against Islam, the article which you have proposed deleting is one where muslims are victims of a hate crime, not offenders. Usually the POV I am covering is quite the opposite. Bachcell (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Man Sentenced for Threatening Illinois Mosque, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man Sentenced for Threatening Illinois Mosque until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:JPPatchesFigure.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have breached 1/rr and misrepresented the intent of a living person. I have brought up your editing at WP:BLPN.Cptnono (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:LateInterurban.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back from Wiki Project Terrorism! I'm Katarighe, a Wikipedian member since 2009. I'm currently the successor of Sherurcij in September because, he has not edited Wikipedia using this account for a considerable amount of time since May 2010. We are trying to renovate the new WP page this fall 2011 and we look forward this month whats next. If you are interested, start the renovation with us and new awards on contributing terrorism are coming soon. The WP terrorism newsletter begins January 2012. See you on October for the updates on WP terrorism. I will send this message next month about the updates. Good Luck.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Terrorism at 22:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gambierbaymodel.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, didn't want to spam you with tons of template notifications so I thought I'd just leave a note instead. I've nominated some of your images for deletion at possibly unfree files, you can see which have been nominated, why, and add your input here. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add machine translations of foreign language articles to Wikipedia. Due to their poor quality, they are generally not useful and can be very difficult to fix. In the future, please follow the instructions laid out at Wikipedia:Translation. --Stfg (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military Light Utility Vehicle, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. DexDor (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Workplace violence, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bachcell. You have new messages at BOZ's talk page.
Message added 05:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Mkdw^talk 05:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:CamoSheridan.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bachcell,

When I restored this article per your request, I cautioned you that you should please focus on rewriting it to make sure that any existing BLP violations are removed, and that if you were unable to do so, I would have to delete this article again. As it has not been edited in about a month, I am taking the precaution of deleting it once again. If you wish to have it restored and sincerely have the time to put some work into it, I suggest making a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.

Thanks! BOZ (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:YFZ Ranch raid has been nominated for merging with Template:FLDS Church. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your contribution to Alton Nolen Article Esmatly (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Agyei, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Akan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Targeted Individual 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Targeted Individual (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Sjö (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Suicide by pilot. I think your new list List of suspected murder suicide incidents involving commercial aircraft got beaten to creation by that page.

:-( Just FYI. 220 of ^Borg 07:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ali Muhammad Brown. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit disruptively or threaten other editors. There was only one revert, clearly justifying your incorrect case that subject was notable for only one event, and you did not discuss before you started the war by reverting without discussion and instead resorting to threats. Bachcell (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently you have as much trouble counting as you do reading Wikipedia policies. First revert. Second revert. Third revert. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I saw that you commented in response to what I said on the Terrorism in Australia article, most notably with regards to Man Haron Monis. Officially, it is regarded as a terrorist incident, while unofficially it is not. Facts have proven that it is not. It is interesting to read your interpretation that it secretly was a terrorist incident. That would indicate a double bluff, as in the government pretended it was a terrorist incident when all evidence proved it wasn't, yet it secretly was due to evidence not available anywhere? It is an interesting theory, and certainly I agree that it is hypothetically possible, but it'd involve a ridiculously high level of government/secret agency manipulation to pull off, and is the payoff worth it? 9/11, in comparison, had an enormous payoff, but this didn't seem to really. While the payoff for the Australian government to lie about this is in line with Australia's prior relationship with China and the desire for Australia to want to show loyalty to USA, a double bluff lie seems to be taking it too far.

If you are serious about your claims, perhaps wikispooks is more your cup of tea? They like to indulge in such "deep politics", as they call it. Wikipedia don't like to indulge in such things. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV says you have to present all views, not use one set of facts to come to a "consensus" and dismiss or whitewash one view as invalid especially when you have dozens of experts lined up on one side saying it is an obvious case of terrorism, and people openly called propogandists being used as "reliable sources" to say it isn't. Remixing pro- and -con obscures the fact that there are two valid sides, and one hasn't "debunked" the other. WP:ORIGINAL says that you can't take an event which the government has declared to be a terrorist event, and then conclude based on facts or propaganda that WP has proven the government is incorrect. It boggles the mind that editors can claim an event perpetrated by a man who is clearly a radicalized islamist, identified as a potential terrorist by Iran of all places, clearly motivated by religious political issues can succeed in whitewashing Australia's biggest and most obvious terrorist attack of 2014 of any political motivation Bachcell (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has already been decided. I was just being consistent. I never personally met the guy, and didn't know anything about him prior to this event; however I can say that I never once even briefly thought that it was terrorism. It never even briefly looked like terrorism. The Australian Government, I believe, were pretending it was terrorism so as to support USA's "war on terror", in which they regularly blame things on Islamic terrorism which are more correctly just criminals. This guy was not a terrorist, he was a criminal. While the term "terrorist" keeps on changing, the current definition of a terrorist is someone who performs an act of harm for a political gain. This guy was just trying to get himself and his girlfriend out of prison. That falls under no version of a definition of terrorism. He just so happened to be a radical Muslim as well. It's quite racist to conclude that all radical Muslims are going to be terrorists. Maybe one day the definition of terrorism will change to have that definition, but right now it does not. The term terrorism used to mean someone who disagreed with the government and was trying to push for an uprising. It is just one of those words that just keeps on changing. Nelson Mandella was without question a terrorist, as was Vladimir Lenin, Che Guevera and of course Fidel Castro. All quite well received today, but definitely all terrorists. The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka were definitely terrorists, but until 9/11 most of the world supported them doing it. By the way, if you are interested in things being pretended not to be terrorism when they really obviously were, look at the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. Very obviously a terrorist attack, that one. Just that it wasn't by a Muslim Arab. Being Muslim and Arab is not the same thing as being a terrorist. But seriously, check out wikispooks if you are interested in deep politics. It is really good for people who don't believe what the government and media tell them. Wikipedia is not the right place for people who think that they are being lied to. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 11:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for clearing this up. A radicalized religious fanatic who just switched sects and caught the attention of Iranian anti-terrorist investigators, and who was reported to Australian anti-terrorist investigators when they saw his message switch to the sect associated with ISIS who asks for an ISIS flag and uses terrorist tactics and taken out by police using anti-terrorist tactics has been proven not to be a terrorist according to a consensus on Wikipedia using controversial propagandists such as left-wing Yassir Morsi, researcher at non-biased Centre for Muslim and non-Muslim Understanding in Australia as reliable sources. If you read the Morsi piece, he actually states that his use of religion turned it into a terrorist incident, and the police treated it as a terrorist incident, whether or not he may have been just another person having a bad day, whether he did it in the name of his religion has no bearing on the crime. Any attempt to establish a consensus that "terrorist incident" is either false or irrelevant amounts to whitewashing not in the spirit of NPOV. There is nothing wrong with presenting both sides, but any story in which any significant number of experts or government agencies has made declaration of terrorism should be good enough to be included in categories and articles on terrorism in Australia, regardless of how many editors take each side. Bachcell (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use edit summaries to make unsupported attacks on living people, such as "suggesting" entirely without evidence or sourcing that the referenced event was a "deliberate crash." Wikipedia is not a place for rumormongering or scandal-building, and if you wish to promote your unsupported theories about the crash, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Arbitration Enforcement page for report about violating above sanctions warning -- as was originally given by admin Liz, above.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Violating what sanctions? What page? Bachcell (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sanctions you were notified about in the section directly above this one. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

indefinite topic ban from all edits related to Ahmed Mohamed, broadly construed, while this matter is being considered at WP:AE

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, 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 using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. 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. Gamaliel (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per consensus at WP:AE this topic ban is now indefinite, though you may appeal at any time. Gamaliel (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bachcell/Leuren Moret, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bachcell/Leuren Moret and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Bachcell/Leuren Moret during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Murder of Tim Bosma page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hallel Yaffa Ariel 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallel Yaffa Ariel until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I hope that you will join me in improving this article, a good article is the best answer to an intemperate deletion. If we work at it, we can perhaps bring it up to good article status.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have time to come back and add an infobox and sources?E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been kept, at least for now, I hope that you will continue to improve it, continue editing, and continue creating articles. But also that you will take time to make certain that the articles you write and material you add are neutral in tone and reliably sources. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the WP:ARBPIA alert below. Wikiwashing terrorist attacks is a real problem, and it's always the same crowd, and we're the ones getting wiki-punished. They can't decide if attacks noted by the prime minister of Israel are notable, or if they should be moved to a listing of one-line descriptions. Bachcell (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware. The only remedy it is to make sure that articles about Israel achieve up to high standards of sourcing and WP:NPOV. And, even more crucially, to make sure that Wikipedia has sufficient editors who believe that Israel-related topics should be held to the same standards (such as WP:GNG that apply to Jordan, France, Turkey and other countries. It can and does happen that good article about topics in Israel are deleted because the article on a noteworthy subject was poorly written, and it happens that well-written articles about notable topics related to Israel are deleted because the the AFD is dominated by editors with an animus towards the Jewish State. As you know, there are sizeable number of editors who know the rules of Wikipedia very well, and who use them to target editors who write about Israel with aggressive WIKIHOUNDING, STALKING, mockery, false accusations, and aggressive behavior of all kinds that usually stays just within the bounds of the Wikipedia rules of behavior. The result is that naive, new and passionate editors writing about Israel get voted off the island. It is necessary to edit in a dispassionate way. Don't lose your temper. Just do good editing. If it makes you feel better, articles about Christianity get treated the same way by aggressive Christianity-hating editors. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Traynor (Royal Marine) a discussion in which it was attempted to categorize Catholic faith as "paranormal", and dismiss God in a category with belief in vampires and hobgoblins. Don't let the trolls provoke you into getting banned. Keep calm and carry on.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahdi Satri Thanks. KamelTebaast 01:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on WP:Articles for deletion/Mahdi Satri. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abteilung IIIb, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages GHQ and Gusev. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2015 Akron Rayathon Hawker 800 crash 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Akron Rayathon Hawker 800 crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. MilborneOne (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bachcell. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had not, largely because I keep wondering why I spend so much time here. But I have just done so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Bly, Oregon. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

The next time you add poorly sourced information concerning Ali Muhammad Brown or any other person to any page in Wikipedia, I will haul your ass to WP:AE so fast you won't know what hit you. I hope I have made myself clear. Now go and read WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:IRS. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This hardly seems WP:CIVIL, your standard of reliable sources won't stand up to any scrutiny. Blocking people from using Fox News which is the only reliable news source on Ali Muhammad Brown. Your "reliable source" like Huffington post never even mentioned his terrorist attack spree. Stop making wiki-death threats. Bachcell (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Mass casualty traffic incident requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. HapHaxion (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You need ot move your iVote at 2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing to the AfD page.Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop speculating about the motives of individuals. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia policy WP:BLP. BLP applies to all parts of Wikipedia, including article talk pages. Further, talk pages are not for general discussion (see WP:NOTFORUM). I see you were warned about the arbitration committee's ruling regarding biographies of living people as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this edit for two reasons: one, this has not been classified as a terrorist attack and two, your opinion does not dictate the notability of an article. "All politically motivated terrorist attacks are notable" is not a Wikipedia policy of any kind whatsoever. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Murder of Miosotis Familia. Since you had some involvement with the Murder of Miosotis Familia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. epicgenius (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per previous consensus, I've reverted your edit naming the driver. This issue can be revisited if he is convicted of any criminal offences in relation to the crash. Mjroots (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Marilou Danley. Since you had some involvement with the Marilou Danley redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you were trying to accomplish with this edit but you will not get anything noticed at the ANI archives. You need to go here if your intent was to file a case against someone, possibly me and the other editors you mentioned. I also recommend you remove that section from the archives since technically it is not an archived discussion. Good luck.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bachcell. Per MOS:TITLES, we use sentence case for article and redirect titles, unless the title is a proper name. To that end, I have moved Rancho Tehama Reserve Shooting Attack to Rancho Tehama Reserve shooting attack. Additionally, I added {{Rcat}} templates for categorization. I also pointed the redirect to the more appropriate Rancho Tehama Reserve shootings article. Have a nice day. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 13:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bachcell. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bachcell. I am messaging you to let you know that I have reverted your edits to October 2017 Northern California wildfires. While I feel that it might be important to add to the article, I just felt that the way you were doing to and how it was written was a bit problematic. Mainly, the issue is that five of the seven sentences seem to focus on immigration, with the focus on the wildfires being at the end of the paragraph. In addition, your edit summaries made it feel more like you were writing more to attack a person than to add what happened during the investigation and what results were found. I felt that I should bring this up with you so that you could see how it was being understood. Obviously, you can revert me, but I do want to let you know how at least one other user was taking your phrasing of the paragraph and edit summaries. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am concerned that the purpose of these edits seems to be to push an anti-immigrant agenda that gives undue weight to the arrest of one person. Although not yet official, most reliable sources are saying that high winds that knocked down trees and branches onto electric power lines was the most plausible cause of the fires. Arson does not seem to be a mainstream theory after two months. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jesus Fabian Gonzalez. Since you had some involvement with the Jesus Fabian Gonzalez redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Super Goku V (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jesus Fabian Gonzalez 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Fabian Gonzalez until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're whitewashing arson attacks by illegal immigrants? Bachcell (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for blatant canvassing. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is leaving 2 messages on the talk page of 1 helpful editor blatant canvassing? Is even leaving a message with 1 editor canvassing? How many messages to how many places is grounds for block based on canvassing? There was no warning. Last time some editor was asking for a block simply because I objected to deleting an article, and objected to others trying to delete articles on terrorist attacks, and I wasn't even editing the articles just the AFD discussions. Bachcell (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One message is enough to be blocked as you've been amply warned before, starting from seven years ago. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that one message is blatant canvassing?Bachcell (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying it. The block message contains appeal instructions if you want a review by another admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I violated a rule you just made up??? Bachcell (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVASS: "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But notifying one editor once after its creation and once after afd is not "blatant" canvassing, that's the part you evidently made up to justify a complete block with no warning about canvassing. 7 years ago is not current warning. Bachcell (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were also reminded of it when you were sanctioned at AE: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive183#Bachcell. And no one is going to hold your hand here, providing refresher reminders of policies and guidelines. You've been editing here long enough to know them (and ignore them in some cases). I'm not going to be lifting this block so your best bet is to appeal to another admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing any number of editors, including one, can be blatant, and this would be hilariously blatant except noone is laughing. You committed one of the more serious policy violations, given it was combined with your WP:POVPUSHing and disruption, 72 hours is lenient. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

three month topic ban from all BLP edits on subjects related to terrorism

You have been sanctioned for repeated BLP-related POV pushing and canvassing as shown here

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, 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 using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. 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} 03:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your topic ban here, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. 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: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

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."

Your topic ban duration has also been reset to expire three months from today. [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bachcell (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard.

Why was I blocked I only informed an editor about an article without actually adding any content. So I can't even add comments on another page about a woman whose article was deleted but is now facing terrorist charges? I could understand extending the topic block, but why is it so harmful that it justifies a complete block? How can there be any harm in just mentioning the existence of an article title? Bachcell (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedurally closing this appeal: it was appealed to AE and unanimously declined, eventually being closed by Sandstein here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Copied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bachcell. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Russian connection requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 17:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Andrew McClinton. Since you had some involvement with the Andrew McClinton redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked at WP:BLPN for a review of my edits at Wilfred Reilly, an article you created and regarding which I am concerned. - Sitush (talk) 09:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bachcell. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Conservators' Center".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to William Francis Pepper has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ford Pinto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ford Escort. 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) 06:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Khalid al-Mihdhar into People linked to Anwar al-Awlaki. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Young Frankenstein at Paramount Theater, Seattle August 2007.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. fuzzy510 (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]