User talk:ScratchMarshall/archive

Welcome!

Hello, ScratchMarshall! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lights, Camera, Lexi!, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tom Smith and Chris Hamilton. 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) 10:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Second wedding

A tag has been placed on Second wedding requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. Blueclaw (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Punching sword

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Punching sword, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• The page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. (See section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.
• It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:The Magic School Bus (TV series) ‎ are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 21:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Lights, Camera, Lexi! for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lights, Camera, Lexi! 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/Lights, Camera, Lexi! 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. StarM 02:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate RMs

Hi. I'm sure in good faith but you appear to have opened two RM templates on the same article. When that happens one or both should be withdrawn. It is probably better that you do not select which to withdraw yourself, but you should be aware that this is likely to happen. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: thought I did say I withdrew the first, but I probably didn't do it properly, did I have to change the template? I guess it may be moot now that it got absorbed into larger article. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes there were closing instructions on the template. No matter now. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Your edits on Unite the Right rally

Are you really suggesting that the cause of death of a person who died in the vehicle-ramming attack was something other than the car? If not, it's accurate to say that the car killed the woman. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Unite the Right rally

Please stop making disruptive edits.

• 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.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Please attempt to seek consensus on the talk page for your changes, or at least describe their nature there. Power~enwiki (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

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 all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

Particularly troubling is your turning that car thing into a "collision". Setting aside the question of the categories, that's pure POV editing. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Unite the Right rally. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 07:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This [1] is moving into personal attack territory. Please remember that Wikipedia requires consensus. Acroterion (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Please don't accuse editors of libel unless in a report to ANI

That's a very serious accusation. You also seem to be ignoring WP:AGF. I've already said this on my talk page but it needs to be said here also. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kate E. Reynolds

Hello, ScratchMarshall. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Kate E. Reynolds, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Rentier (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Kate E. Reynolds

Hello, ScratchMarshall,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Kate E. Reynolds should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate E. Reynolds .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Rentier (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zak Storm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WNYO (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thx

	Thx
	If you liked the revision, you'll have to undo it's deletion and bring it up in talk yourself. Admin has seen fit to allow it to be constantly deleted on the sole basis that there's no backing consensus against the people keeping it out. Equilibrium103 (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution re: Unite The Right Rally

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you. Equilibrium103 (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Molestation

The recent page moves left lots of wikilinks pointing to the new disambiguation page. I've had a go at cleaning them up per WP:FIXDABLINKS but would appreciate a review, especially of the ones I've left and tagged as "disambiguation needed". As this is a difficult subject due to euphemisms and the risk of libel, any specialist help would be welcome. Thanks, Certes (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Child sexual molestation) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Child sexual molestation, ScratchMarshall!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I redirected this, as you predicted, because Wikipedia articles should cover topics, not semantic differences in phrasing. Note child molestation is also a redirect. Please feel free to expand the topic at the target article.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, ScratchMarshall. 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)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ava Preston

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ava Preston 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 a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ScratchMarshall

Notifying you about this AE request. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Ivanhoe The King's Knight) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Ivanhoe The King's Knight, ScratchMarshall!

Wikipedia editor Paul2520 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for starting the article. The World News Network source needs a URL, or we need to find a better source (searching the series title on the site led me to a link that just showed a YouTube video). Let me know if you need any help!

To reply, leave a comment on Paul2520's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

paul2520 (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Ava Preston

Hello, ScratchMarshall,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Ava Preston should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ava Preston .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Advice

Hi, I myself am an editor who created articles, some of which had been put up under discussion for deletion. Due to things like this happening, as you have seen regarding your work, what I would sometimes do is to use a sandbox to store the information, or if I create a page, then nowadays, it would often be a redirect to an existing article, before I can turn it into an article of its own. For instance, I initially made South American jaguar as a redirect to a section in Jaguar, before I could put in enough references and information to turn it into its own article. Leo1pard (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Shining Days for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shining Days 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/Shining Days 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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shiny Days, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page School Days (check to confirm | 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) 09:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Check this out

The article Writing motivation, which I mentioned as having existed since 2006, got deleted after all! Leo1pard (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Max & Ruby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Bates (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Harold Crews

The article Harold Crews has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnecessary disambiguation page, they do not have the same name.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ... discospinster _talk 21:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Assault on DeAndre Harris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Assault and battery

Kelly Petillo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Assault and battery

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Raw intelligence

Hello, ScratchMarshall,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Raw intelligence should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raw intelligence .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

SamHolt6 (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of William Douglas Campbell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William Douglas Campbell 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/William Douglas Campbell 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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Assault on DeAndre Harris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Assault and battery

Mischling (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aryanization

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

/archive

Final warning

If you post WP:BLP policy violating content like this anywhere on Wikipedia again, I will seek sanctions at WP:AE. You have been repeatedly told not to use Wikipedia for this purpose before. No more warnings.- MrX 🖋 20:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Stoneman Douglas talk

If you feel I'm being a bit dickly today, you're probably right. But we don't use article talk to blue-sky about what it would be nice to include if we could find sources for it. We find the sources for what we think it would be nice to include and we bring them to article talk for discussion. Nobody is better than you at searching, and you're the one who thinks these things would be nice to include. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (CLOUD Act) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating CLOUD Act, ScratchMarshall!

Wikipedia editor L235 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for your work here!

To reply, leave a comment on L235's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shooting drill

The article Shooting drill has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

per WP:TNT. There are probably notable concepts called "Shooting drill", but the existing page is so bad as to hinder navigation.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. 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 ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Reposting defamatory speculation verbatim is a gross violation of BLP. Veiling it as discussion of conspiracy theories doesn't make it complaint with policy. I'll give thought tomorrow to whether we need to impose arbitration enforcement sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Notice to anyone else interested: Acroterion is not an uninvolved admin. In special:diff/798752997 you can see that on September 3, Acroterian falsely accused me of making a personal attack against Valarian in special:diff/798752389 when I was only criticizing V's behavior. Prior to that, you can see at Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_6#Murder_and_Terrorism_categories that Acroterion was already participating in a talk page section I created which MrX was also involved in, where Acroterion falsely accused me of POV-pushing:

"Otherwise, ScratchMarshal's attempts to impose their interpretation of BLPCRIME has been a form of POV pushing"

You can see at Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_7 that Acroterion is still involved in that topic which he issued warnings against me in after voicing disagreements with me in the discussion.

My behavior was in accordance of WP:BLPCRIME which prohibits us from saying people did crimes prior to a guilty conviction in them.

I won't bother appealing for an unblock for something only 48 hours, but am voicing my strong objection to it. Considering how involved has been with me in the past, I believe he should leave disciplinary action decisions to uninvolved moderators.

The same goes for MrX and his reverting my talk page contributions.

@Acroterion: if you think you can get away with false accusations like this:

Reposting defamatory speculation verbatim

Your behavior will eventually come to light.

If you think you can get away with false accusations like this:

Veiling it as discussion of conspiracy theories doesn't make it complaint with policy

Your harassment towards others will eventually be observed.

I am not "veiling" anything. I posted a source from WUSA 9 (which appears to be a reliable source) and it was deleted.

People can see from the history that you have attempted to hide the truth by using strikethrough on the diffs.

Eliana Block's February 21st article on wusa9 is not "defamatory speculation" or "a discussion of conspiracy theories". Both of your summaries are misleading.

Something titled "here's why David Hogg and other Florida students are not 'crisis actors'" is clearly debunking theories, not merely "discussing" them.

This issue is already discussed in the article's main space so there is absolutely nothing controversial about posting similar sources in the talk page:

Tessa Lyons, a product manager at Facebook, said that “Hoax images that attack the victims of last week’s tragedy in Florida are abhorrent,” and further said “We are removing this content from Facebook" after the site announced that it will remove posts that wrongly claim that Hogg and other students are crisis actors.

cited to "'Abhorrent' Hoax Facebook Posts Are Claiming the Florida School Shooting Survivors Are 'Crisis Actors'" from TIME, February 21

On Facebook and Instagram, hundreds of posts and images perpetuating these falsehoods were found under the hashtag #crisisactor.

cited to "Facebook and Google Struggle to Squelch 'Crisis Actor' Posts" a February 23 article in the New York Times by Jack Nicas.

If it doesn't violate BLP to mention the crisis actor accusations based on reliable sources, then it doesn't violate BLP to mention the ridiculous specifics of those accusations and how easily they were debunked. Every single accusation I mentioned on the talk page was an already-debunked one, there was absolutely no harm in reporting that.

Anyone admins who check the history (which now ONLY admins can do, thanks to Acroterion's abuse of his power to censor) will see this. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nicolas Cruz

A tag has been placed on Nicolas Cruz requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. - MrX 🖋 17:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ScratchMarshall promoting conspiracy theories. - MrX 🖋 18:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I will eventually fully read this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive977#ScratchMarshall_promoting_conspiracy_theories later. Figures you open it when I am unable to it because of the block and it gets closed within the day and shoved off to archives. I don't suppose anyone wants to give me a hint at how to appeal this? ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

A block does not prevent you from reading any part of Wikipedia, only from editing anything but your talk page. If you wish to file an appeal of a Discretionary Sanction, such as your Topic Ban, the place to go is WP:Arbitration enforcement (WP:AE), although before you go there I would first discuss it with the admin who levied the sanction, on their talk page, User talk:NeilN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic-banned from editing in the BLP topic area, specifically "any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people, or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles of any page in any namespace".

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in this discussion.

This topic ban 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. Please go to WP:TBAN and read the information there to see what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal against the ban, please say so below or on my talk page and I will explain how to do it. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  TonyBallioni (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: re

I can reasonably see myself thinking this was related to the appeal if I were in his shoes (though I would have asked for clarification first) and I don't want to hold someone else to a different standard than I hold myself. Call it the last bit of WP:ROPE.

I was viewing it as two halves of one whole action, and I was told both AE and ANI were valid options. AE was necessary because only admins could view redacted edits. ANI seemed like a newly opened option because of the unredaction.

This wasn't "shopping", just that actions against me and actions against Acroterion are separate things to decide on. I didn't want to clutter AE when this became something non-admins could again give feedback on.

I do not believe I was disruptive. Criticism of administrator actions should not be squelched by that accusation.

Did I word things too strongly? How could I have worded my criticism of Acroterion's actions differently for you to not perceive it as an "attack"? I perceive myself as being under "attack" but the people attacking me are not being called disruptive. Seems unfair. ScratchMarshall (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• I consider this block pretty generous given how many other people wanted a long-term block for a TBAN violation or disruption caused by the post itself. You were making pretty strong claims against Acroterion without any real evidence to substantiate it, and were essentially making a new appeal at ANI (where we don't do appeals), after it became clear your appeal at AE was going to be rejected. I don't intend to lift the block, but you are free to appeal it using the instructions above. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: it wasn't a 2nd go at appealing the topic ban, but a different appeal for a different outcome. It's clear the diffs were redacted, I provided a quote from an admin who saw no BLP violation in the diffs, Acro ended up un-redacting it after we highlighted that. What more evidence is needed?

I'm not in any rush, I'd rather spend my time better learning how to abide by the topic ban than to risk longer punishment.

Though as I understand it, this 1-week block is not for violating the topic ban but rather 'disruptive behavior' which seems like an interesting catch-all that could be applied to anything if you're after someone.

Should I run any attempts to engage with Wikipedians past you first for input on whether or not you consider it disruptive?

I am interested, for example, in creating a new subcategory for Category:Wikipedia blocking since category:blocked Wikipedia users appears like it might be only for people with active blocks, so I would not belong there when my block expires.

Say for example category:Wikipedia users who have been blocked which would apply to both currently-blocked and previously-blocked users, as a parent category.

I think it would be good to have a way of keeping track of users who wish to voluntarily self-identify as having been blocked, where we could work together to better understand what happened and how we can improve from the experience. ScratchMarshall (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You’re free to make an appeal. No need to run things by me. I doubt that category would be very popular. People already have a record of their blocks in their block log. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Your appeal at AE

Please note it was unanimously declined and closed by Sandstein. [2]. The topic ban extends to WP:ANI as well. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: would it be permissible to discuss general BLP policies so long as I do not refer to any actual named examples of people? ScratchMarshall (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

No. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: that seems odd, because that would mean I couldn't say "I am subject to a BLP topic ban" or ask you the question I just did. Reviewing what you had said Mar 3:

• any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people
• any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles of any page in any namespace

The first would appear to refer to articles about people. The second would appear to refer to people who are the subject of such an article in any other page. I can talk about you in saying "Neil gave me a topic ban" because you lack an article, for example.

It sounds like you're now trying to expand the scope? ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

See WP:BANEX Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't dare revert vandalism to a BLP article while this is in effect. Too much risk of someone saying "I disagree" just to seek to punish me. The only defense there is to either say they're not reasonable or not acting in good faith, and in either case I would be persecuted for making personal attacks. No thanks. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to talk about policy without referring to examples or re-litigating what caused your topic ban in the first place like what you tried to do at WP:ANI. Doing either of these will trigger a block from me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Almost, but I think I could do that carefully. I'd like to propose for example that any future topic bans to "all BLP" (this would not apply to me since mine is already present) require a minimum of 2 underlying specific bans (1 single instance should probably just be a ban of a particular person's page, not all persons' pages) or possibly some other consistent agreed-upon number that apply equally to all. That any future "all BLP" bans then automatically be revoked if that minimum number is in the future no longer exceeded due to a repeal. Violations to BLP in the future I advocate should be judged on a subject-by-subject basis. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

That's just not going to fly. You apparently haven't really read the WP:BLP policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, you apparently haven't read WP:ACDS, and specifically WP:DSTOPICS. There's many topic areas discretionary sanction apply to and there's no reason to single out BLPs for special rules. Additionally, only Arbcom can change how discretionary sanctions work. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

And I cannot see us doing that. If we did that it would undermine our sanctions regime. I certainly wouldn't agree to it and I'd be surprised if any of my colleagues did. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You have a good point Neil, it shouldn't apply to just BLP, but to any broad bans. The idea that any broad restrictions should be based upon multiple singular examples is probably already in unwritten practice. The issue is just standardized regulation. IE some users might get a broad ban for objections people make to 2 topics, others might not receive it until there are objections on 9 topics. Of course, weight could be based more on a tally of article count, maybe some kind of points system based on instances (in which case could be multiple per single article) rather than topics. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cleverman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page APTN (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Beyond RPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Beyond RPG. Since you had some involvement with the Beyond RPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PamD 23:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Shutterbugs moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Shutterbugs, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Minako Morimoto listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Minako Morimoto. Since you had some involvement with the Minako Morimoto redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: instead of "by blocked user" wouldn't "previously blocked" be clearer? Without an adjective a reader might interpret that as "currently blocked". The only thing presently up is a topic ban, not an editing block. I'm asking you to clarify this here rather than editing the discussion because I worry doing so would violate the ban (not block). ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Les P'tits Diables moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Les P'tits Diables, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Cleverman

Not a Canadian show, dates don't get added. Removed. -- Alex^TW 03:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Florida school shooting for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Florida school shooting 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/Florida school shooting 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. ansh666 06:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)