User talk:Bnb7294726491

April 2019[edit]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jeppiz (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user may be a new account for Cimmerian Praetor. They are currently involved in setting up an edit war in Right to keep and bear arms by returning Cimmerian Praetor's biased editing to the article. This user insists on his view being the correct one although consensus is that it is not. 99.236.244.35 (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019[edit]

You have recently twice added the same content to Overview of gun laws by nation and had it reverted twice. If you add it again, I will block you. I hope that's clear enough. We do not use edit-warring to force our own preferred version into an article. The talk page, Talk:Overview of gun laws by nation, is the place to make your points about whether you have made a good summary of the source, especially as it already contains a large chunk of that source for everyone to see. You may also want to address the question of whether or not Overview of gun laws by nation is the most relevant article to include the information from that source. --RexxS (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does a study looking at the effects of gun ownership and effects on homicide not belong on an article about guns from an international perspective? Are studies only allowed when they agree with your views?Abatementyogin (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ask your questions on the talk page where you'll be able engage with editors who edit regularly on the topic. You can apologise to me for your snide comments after you've interacted with other editors who actually have views. --RexxS (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Firearms regulation in Switzerland. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. 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 violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You literally followed me from a completely different page upset at the fact that you were called out on your double-standard.Abatementyogin (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. You repeated the same behavior several times over the course of months at one article, which prompted me to look at your contributions. I invite you to discuss these changes on the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What such behavior? No reason is needed to own a gun in Switzerland. The official weapons act linked in the article says this.Abatementyogin (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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, as you did at Firearms regulation in Switzerland, you may be blocked from editing. ZH8000 (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 20:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 09:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

30 May 2020[edit]

Please do not attack other editors. 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. NightHeron (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks[edit]

Hello, I'm Joel B. Lewis. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Race and intelligence that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023[edit]

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

schoolshooters.info isn't a reliable site? LOL

https://schoolshooters.info/ Tellium (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you discuss it at WP:RSN first, and that in the meantime you avoid changing sourced content the way you’ve been doing. The warning has more to do with your rather casual approach to referencing. Acroterion (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

schoolshooters.info is a credible site involving peer reviewed research by Peter Langman. Considered by academia and law enforcement to be one of the foremost experts of the cause of school shootings in the world. I gave a source and citation for everything I edit. Peter Langman and his site were already cited extensively in the article about the shooting. Tellium (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm Cjse23. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Columbine High School massacre—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Cjse23 (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is a quote from one of the shooters in their diary regarding bullying 'not constructive'? Tellium (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Columbine High School massacre. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How was that vandalism? I'm posting a quote from one of the shooters on their personal tapes regarding their motive for the attack that's noted here: https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/columbine_basement_tapes_1.0.pdf Tellium (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]