User talk:JohnTopShelf

Hello, I'm Zazpot. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Legal recognition of non-binary gender seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. If you are unfamiliar with the singular "they", this may help:

Many people tell me that my pronouns are grammatically incorrect; however, they use “they” as a singular pronoun on a daily basis without thinking twice about it. When telling a story, Person A will say, “I met up with a friend from college last night!” Person B will respond, “Oh, cool! What’s their name?” In this scenario, Person B does not know the gender of Person A’s friend, therefore defaults to a gender-neutral pronoun.

Zazpot (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Singular they, you may be blocked from editing. Funcrunch (talk) 20:53, 26 October 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 transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), 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.

Funcrunch (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to LaVar Ball. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

When opinions are clearly factual, and the opposing views are fringe ones pushed mostly by unreliable sources, we state the facts and ignore the fringe by giving the fringe the weight it deserves, in some cases no mention at all. Framing factual opinions as mere "opinions" poisons the well and serves to undermine the factual nature of the content. It would serve to frame facts as mere opinion which can be ignored, and frame debunked conspiracy theories as factual. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 lead to a block. Thank you. Dr. K. 17:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 your 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. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Lima Central Catholic High School, you may be blocked from editing. John from Idegon (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Leviv ich 21:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Please stop trying to change it to "socialist" (diff, diff). You can start a discussion and try to seek consensus on the talk page. Leviv ich 21:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi John! I need like a half hour to write out a response to your questions on my talk page about why I reverted you and "what the problem is" with your edits. However, in the meantime, you should stop edit warring on that page immediately. It's under discretionary sanctions, and furthermore, it's a WP:1RR page, which means you can't keep putting back language after you've been reverted–you only get one revert per 24 hours, and every time you put "socialist" back in, that counts as a revert. Please self-revert these edits that you just made: diff, diff, diff. An admin has placed a DS notice (just above this thread), and while I'm not an admin and I'm just going to write an answer to your questions and I myself can't take any kind of action, some other admin might come along and block you for violating the 1RR rule. I strongly urge you to self-revert those edits and don't put them back, at least until I've had a chance to write a longer explanation about this issue, which I will do shortly. Thanks. Leviv ich 17:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi again. Your posts on my talk page boil down to two questions: How could I possible violate any policy by stating that Ocasio Cortes is a socialist? ... There was no reason to revert my edit. and What on earth is wrong with calling her a socialist?. The former is about conduct and the latter is about content, so here are my answers. Leviv ich 18:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JohnTopShelf reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: ). Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JohnTopShelf reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: ). Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Chelsea Manning, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Do not reinsert material which has been removed unless there is clear consensus on the talk page that it should be included in the article. You need to engage in the consensus-building discussion process and not attempt to force through your proposed changes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Bradv🍁 20:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello. You have been warned already about the Discretionary Sanctions at the page Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. But you keep re-adding content that other people have removed. That's a no-no. You have done it three times now; you could be blocked for that since the article is under a one-revert restriction as well as a requirement not to restore content that someone has objected to by reverting. If you think the material should be in the article, don't make your arguments in the edit summary; make them on the talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Patrick Moore is not a Greenpeace co-founder. He lied. He's a nuclear/logging industry lobbyist and only worked for Greenpeace's Canada branch for some time, which he used as a credential to back his lobbying for polluting industries. Greenpeace disowned him multiple times. His criticism of AOC therefore has serious conflict of interest issues and including that in the AOC page would be POV and a serious violation of BLP guidelines. The other editor were correct. Any sensible person would recognize that as a something from a deranged lunatic. This is a place for you to complain about leftists either. Please stop. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article on Dr. Patrick Moore, he is a co-founder of Greenpeace:

According to Greenpeace: How a Group of Ecologists, Journalists, and Visionaries Changed the World by Rex Wyler, the Don't Make a Wave Committee (DMWC) was formed in January 1970 by Dorothy and Irving Stowe, Ben Metcalfe, Marie and Jim Bohlen, Paul Cote, and Bob Hunter and incorporated in October 1970. The Committee had formed to plan opposition to the testing of a one megaton hydrogen bomb in 1969 by the United States Atomic Energy Commission on Amchitka Island in the Aleutians. In 1971, Moore joined the committee as a member of the crew of the Greenpeace, a chartered fishing boat originally named the Phyllis Cormack which the Committee sent across the North Pacific in order to draw attention to the US testing of a 5 megaton bomb planned for September of that year. As Greenpeace co-founder Bob Hunter wrote, "Moore was quickly accepted into the inner circle on the basis of his scientific background, his reputation [as an environmental activist], and his ability to inject practical, no-nonsense insights into the discussions." In May 1971, Moore traveled to Alaska with Jim Bohlen, representing the DMWC in US Atomic Energy Commission hearings. Moore attended DMWC meetings, and was part of the committee when its name was changed to the Greenpeace Foundation. Other committee members included committee founders Bob Hunter, Rod Marining and Ben Metcalfe Moore was described by New Scientist in a 1999 interview as a 'founding member' of Greenpeace.

Dr. Moore was director of Greenpeace Canada from 1977 until he left the organization in 1985.

To characterize Dr. Moore as a "deranged lunatic", rather than the respected scientist and environmentalist he is, in an attempt to discredit his comments, is unwarranted. Further, making inaccurate, inflammatory comments without doing even a modicum of basic research certainly reduces Tsumikiria's credibility on this subject.JohnTopShelf (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I am also not a fan of tapioca, that being said, your edit needs consensus from the talk page since American politics has discretionary sanctions. Have fun! PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

That's just how it works around here. Sorry pal. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

In the interest of educating you I'm sending you to a friendly bunch of fellas at the notice board.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 02:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 03:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 03:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

-- MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JohnTopShelf reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Dr. K. 03:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 17:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JohnTopShelf reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: ). Thank you. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 17:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

---

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."

Arbitration enforcement appeal

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I was blocked on March 25 for one week for edit warring.

Reason for the appeal

There is no edit war. I made an edit to the article on Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Then I noticed that part of the edit (on the Modern Monetary Theory) was in the wrong section, and I moved it into where it belongs. I thought that an editor, Bradyv, had only reverted the part of my edit with statements from Dr. Moore regarding the Green New Deal; I did not see that he had also reverted the part of my edit regarding MMT. That was my mistake, and accordingly I apologize for moving the MMT edit after the reversion. Once I realized that my entire edit was reverted, I did not try to put any part of the edit back into the article. I did not intend to be part of an edit war.

I have also been accused of incivility. I have not been less than civil to any editor, and I take issue with accusation. It seems that the accuser either 1) thinks that the content of my suggested edits, which include statements critical of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, are examples of incivility by me because this person does not agree with the statements or 2) believes that I am somehow not being civil by what I have written on the article or the person's talk page. If this person, or indeed any person here, believes I am being less than civil, please post the statement of mine you have issue with (accurately and completely, please) for all to see and let them be the judge. It is also worth noting that the person who has accused me of incivility, Tsumikiria, wrote this to me regarding my edits to insert statements by Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: "Any sensible person would recognize that as a something from a deranged lunatic." I am not sure what the person's definition of incivility is, but stating that I am not a sensible person is more rude and uncivil than anything I have written.

Tsumikiria's edit to my talk page, regarding Dr. Moore: Patrick Moore is not a Greenpeace co-founder. He lied. He's a nuclear/logging industry lobbyist and only worked for Greenpeace's Canada branch for some time, which he used as a credential to back his lobbying for polluting industries. Greenpeace disowned him multiple times. His criticism of AOC therefore has serious conflict of interest issues and including that in the AOC page would be POV and a serious violation of BLP guidelines. The other editor were correct. Any sensible person would recognize that as a something from a deranged lunatic. This is a place for you to complain about leftists either. Please stop. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article on Dr. Patrick Moore, he is a co-founder of Greenpeace: According to Greenpeace: How a Group of Ecologists, Journalists, and Visionaries Changed the World by Rex Wyler, the Don't Make a Wave Committee (DMWC) was formed in January 1970 by Dorothy and Irving Stowe, Ben Metcalfe, Marie and Jim Bohlen, Paul Cote, and Bob Hunter and incorporated in October 1970. The Committee had formed to plan opposition to the testing of a one megaton hydrogen bomb in 1969 by the United States Atomic Energy Commission on Amchitka Island in the Aleutians. In 1971, Moore joined the committee as a member of the crew of the Greenpeace, a chartered fishing boat originally named the Phyllis Cormack which the Committee sent across the North Pacific in order to draw attention to the US testing of a 5 megaton bomb planned for September of that year. As Greenpeace co-founder Bob Hunter wrote, "Moore was quickly accepted into the inner circle on the basis of his scientific background, his reputation [as an environmental activist], and his ability to inject practical, no-nonsense insights into the discussions." In May 1971, Moore traveled to Alaska with Jim Bohlen, representing the DMWC in US Atomic Energy Commission hearings. Moore attended DMWC meetings, and was part of the committee when its name was changed to the Greenpeace Foundation. Other committee members included committee founders Bob Hunter, Rod Marining and Ben Metcalfe Moore was described by New Scientist in a 1999 interview as a 'founding member' of Greenpeace.

The article also indicates that Dr. Moore was director of Greenpeace Canada from 1977 until he left the organization in 1985.

To characterize Dr. Moore as a "deranged lunatic" and a liar, rather than the respected scientist and environmentalist he is, in an attempt to discredit his comments, is unwarranted. Further, making inaccurate, inflammatory comments without doing even a modicum of basic research certainly reduces this person's credibility on this subject.

My real issue is with the reason for the reversions, which has not been addressed by any reverter in any detail other than referring to 1RR (which I honestly did not think I violated this time, but apparently I inadvertently did) or a statement about requiring consensus. Note: The one notable exception to this has been Levivich, whose explanations were very helpful and appreciated. I placed my proposed edits on the article's Talk page, and waited a while, with very little discussion. Knowing that other editors watch the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article like hawks, and make reversions within seconds, I naturally assumed if they had real issues with the content of the edits they would discuss them thoroughly and civilly on the Talk page. When that didn't happen, I thought I would see if there would be an issue with the edits being inserted. Of course, there was - the edits were instantly reverted. But let's focus on the content of the edits. There is obviously a lot of criticism (including outright rejection), from various people whose statements have been reported on a wide variety of sources, of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's positions - in particular her Democratic Socialist belief in the Modern Monetary Theory. Surely some mention that MMT is widely criticized should be allowed in the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article. But Wikipedia editors have been steadfast in their refusal to allow any criticism of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's positions into the article, which weakens the article and violates the "neutral point of view" - a foundation of Wikipedia. It is worth noting that Wikipedia editors obviously have no issue with criticism in other articles about living politicians - the articles on President Trump, Mike Pence, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell and others all include criticism. Is there a reason that criticism is allowed in some articles about living persons, but not in others? If the President can be criticized within Wikipedia, surely a Congresswoman like Ms. Ocasio-Cortez can be. I am glad there is criticism in the articles I mentioned, and believe there is a place for well-cited criticism in the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article. As for consensus - I doubt that could ever happen. Consensus would require that everyone have the same or similar point of view. Given the point of view by the overwhelming majority of editors who focus on the Ocasio-Cortez article, who steadfastly refuse to allow any criticism or her in the article, I can't imagine anyone coming to a consensus even on the insertion of criticism of her adherence to the widely rejected MMT. But consensus should not be the goal, and indeed flies in the face of a "neutral point of view", which requires presenting various sides of a topic - not just the side of an issue that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and her supporters here at Wikipedia take.

As for the threat to ban me permanently - I have a life outside of Wikipedia, and not being able to edit here, while unfortunate and unwarranted, would not be the end of the world for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTopShelf (talk • contribs)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; this unblock request appears to be old, referring to an already-expired block and not the one currently in place. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

Here, I fixed your unblock request for you so administrators will notice it. As for your your proposed content, discussions are being held at Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Please copy your comment there and join the discussion after your block has expired. Criticism of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez can absolutely be included, but per our policy, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Balance, Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Also, you're under the common misconception that consensus is when all people involved have the same point of view. It is not. Also, please do paraphrase and do not directly copy-paste material from sources, as such copyright violations will get us sued. Again, please join the discussion. I will not comment further here. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

To User:Tsumikiria: Thank you for fixing the unblock request for me. I really appreciate it. More importantly, I definitely appreciate the feedback regarding potential copyright violations, and how to best present my suggested edits. (I hope you see this on my Talk page - I can't edit yours, obviously)

Serious advise: you've been give a tiny bit of rope here, but you're going to get reverted and probably indefinitely blocked if you simply return to edit warring over the exact same stuff again. If you've got any interest in making productive contributions to Wikipedia, you need to stop and take your discussion to the talk page of AOC and keep it there until there is consensus for your edits. If consensus never materializes,then you'll have to be willing to live with not getting your way on this issue, just like every other Wikipedia editor has to from time to time. Nblund ^talk 18:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, one week proved to be much too lenient. John, if you are blocked for bad behavior and then IMMEDIATELY resume said behavior after the block is released, that's automatic grounds for a new block, which I just delivered for you. Even so, one month seems too lenient to me. The next step if you do this again will be either an indefinite block or discussing whether we should ban you from the topic of post 1932 American politics entirely. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month 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 ~~~~}}.  – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear Muboshgu (talk): I disagree with being blocked by you, but I have to say - I enjoyed a lot of your baseball articles, especially the article on Wally Pipp. Keep up the good work! - JohnTopShelf (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations are in order for Nblundtalk. Nblund managed to read my last edit of the Ocasio-Cortez article and check all the cites before deciding to revert the edit - all in a matter of about 15 seconds. This has to be some kind of record -this kind of speed puts Usain Bolt to shame. I do not mean to insinuate that this editor simply blindly, automatically reverted the edit upon seeing that it was from me.

In my edit, I cited to Wikipedia-approved cites, and did not directly quote but rather paraphrased. However, I admittedly did one thing that is clearly not tolerated by Wikipedia editors who watch this article like hawks - I had the unmitigated gall to criticize a progressive darling. I have to wonder if the same level of scrutiny is required to edit articles on other living persons like Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, President Trump, Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, Justice Cavanaugh, Orrin Hatch, George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Justice Thomas, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio - which all include a great deal of criticism. Striken on behalf of JohnTopShelf on 20:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Also - if you are going to revert edits, please have the courtesy to mention the specific content-based reason for the reversion, without resorting to "lack of consensus" or "disruptive editing". I honestly appreciate constructive feedback, like I have received from Levevich and Tsumikiria. JohnTopShelf (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

As for the one-month block by Muboshgu (talk] - please explain how I am being disruptive. My edit followed the rules, my edits were fact-based, I cited Wikipedia-approved sources, and I did not violate 1-RR after it was reverted without any explanation.JohnTopShelf (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

JohnTopShelf, you have repeatedly tried to insert this information into the article, despite knowing full well that the other editors disagree with you. This has been explained many times. Bradv🍁 19:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear Bradv🍁: I understand that you disagree with me. That is not a problem - there is nothing wrong with disagreement. But disagreement is not a valid reason for reverting an edit that follows the rules and cites to Wikipedia-approved sources. I also understand there will never be a consensus for any criticism of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, as the majority of Wikipedia editors are progressives. (I understand consensus does not require 100% agreement, but it certainly requires majority agreement). So while criticism of President Trump is allowed, including personal criticism to the point of characterizing him as a liar and racist, criticism of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's positions, no matter how widely rejected, (e.g. her adherence to Modern Monetary Theory) will never be allowed. JohnTopShelf (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It is sad to see that you read but ignored my above advises that you should have engage in discussions already, after seeing numerous people object. This is why administrators are convinced that you'll simply continue this unacceptable editorial behavior that got you sanctioned in the first place, and now you're living up with the consequence. And yes, we apply the same level of scrutiny to any other prominent Republican politicians. Writing a resignation letter here while blaming other editors neither helpful or encouraging. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Tsumikiria. I have made my last edit to the article anyway. Take care. JohnTopShelf (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

John, in case you didn't read my explanations before, I will repeat it: Per WP:TPO, You should never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. This includes changing the section title of other people's messages, or adding unnecessary "XX said what", as you did here. If you disagree with what I have said, you can either add a new message below and WP:THREAD it, or just remove it, although archiving is definitely more encouraged. Also, once other people have replied your message and you wish to change it, you should WP:STRIKE out the unwanted portion and append new comment onto it, rather than directly removing or changing your old comment. I have did that for you. Ask here if you have other questions. Thanks. Tsumikiria⧸ 🦙🌉 20:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

OK Thanks Tsumikiria! I would send you Wiki love, but I can't edit your talk page. While I disagree with a lot of your positions, as you do mine, I honestly appreciate your assistance with the Wikipedia policies, which rival the U.S. tax code for needless complexity. JohnTopShelf (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmm Muboshgu beat me to it on Rashida Tlaib, where your edit was an obvious smear attempt based on a Fox News article that pulled a note out of context. I did revert you on Antifa (United States), where you falsely had an ADL source claim that Antifa is characterized by violence: you misread that either knowingly or foolishly. Plus, you're back at the AOC article again--I can't help but wonder if you have a fixation on her and maybe some of her colleagues. You just came off a block; it seems to me that your prime motive on Wikipedia still is to include tendentious text in BLPs and other articles, from a right-wing perspective. Muboshgu, Ritchie333, MelanieN, Black Kite, I think it's time for either a longer block, or a total topic ban via ds/ap or ds/blp. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, I hope it's not, but it could be. John, whenever I see your name on my watchlist, I check to see what you changed. So, I caught the Tlaib edit. Implying that Tlaib said the Holocaust gave her a "calming feeling" is just a gross misrepresentation. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear  Muboshgu (talk): My recent edits to the Ocasio-Cortez article were to clean up grammar and fix sentences that were out of chronological order - I did not change anything of substance. I have no clue why these edits would be problematic or warrant another block. As for Rashida Tlaib - I read her entire quote. Obviously, I am not the only person who took issue with it, as many in Congress and elsewhere criticized her comments as anti-Semetic. But if you and others feel my edit was a gross misrepresentation then so be it.

The article on President Trump includes the following sentences in the opening section of the article: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist. There are many problems with inclusion of this language in the article. First - many politicians make misleading statements, but that is not placed in the article, much less in the opening paragraph. Second, the fact that the statements have been documented by fact-checkers is hardly relevant - fact checkers can and do routinely tear apart speeches to characterize the slightest misstep as a lie. Remember President Obama saying he had visited 57 States? Or if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor? But the opening section of Obama's article does not state that he has made many false statements, and it shouldn't. Third, most fact check web sites are notoriously liberal, and are not objective when determining if a conservative has made a false or misleading statement. Fourth - the sentence about many of his comments being characterized as racist is not even cited, but merely mentioned as an established fact, which it certainly is not. For all these reasons these sentences need to be removed. JohnTopShelf (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you should compare fact checking to Ideological bias on Wikipedia. Just a thought. --SVTCobra (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Why did you post your opinions here instead of the article talk page? Airing strong opinions on your own talk page is unlikely to lead to changes in an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, everyone knows that if a reporter had asked FDR in May, 1944 whether the Allied forces were going to invade Normandy, that FDR would have lied. George Washington told a few lies during the American Revolution to deceive the British. All presidents (and all adults) lie occasionally. But many reliable sources verify that Trump lies compulsively, pathologically, blatantly, for no good reason and vastly more often than any previous president of the United States. Nothing that Trump says can be trusted. As for Obama's 57 states verbal stumble, it is obvious from viewing the video that he was tempted to say he had visited all 50 states, remembered that there were a handful he hadn't visited, recalculated on the fly and inadvertently misspoke and said "57" rather than "47". The truth is that he had visited 47 states at that point. He did not double down, get indignant, attack those who pointed out his error or deny that the incident took place. Those are behaviors unique to Donald Trump, as verified by many highly reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it I get it - you don't like President Trump (he won - get over it). But Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view, and statements need to be properly cited to reliable sources. The sentences about him lying, and especially the sentence about him being a racist, are neither. JohnTopShelf (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

My personal feelings about Trump are as irrelevant as are your personal feelings about the man. Please be aware that I am not a regular editor of the Trump biography, and either I have made zero edits to that article or perhaps a very few minor edits. I have commented a few times on the talk page but infrequently. I do not edit that article much because I trust the active long-term editors there to do a good job, and I have little interest in editing high-visability, controversial articles. I am old and tend to move slowly and cautiously. I am speaking instead about the general principle that Wikipedia articles summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about the topic. Wikipedia editors came to widespread agreement about what constitutes a reliable source long before Donald Trump became a serious candidate and was elected president. Numerous reliable sources describe in great detail his well-known propensity for extremely frequent lying and racially inflammatory comments. Reflecting and summarizing that reality in the article is by no means a violation of the neutral point of view. On the contrary: that core content policy requires that this particular content be included prominently, because that is how many reliable sources describe the man. Neutrality does not mean whitewashing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it - It is nice to see another old guy here. I have never edited the Trump article either. And I don't have the time, energy, or inclination to debate this issue further with all the editors who allow their liberal bias to impact how they edit every article about a political figure. I am just troubled that criticism dominates articles about conservatives but is virtually absent in articles about liberals. I guess I will just agree to disagree. JohnTopShelf (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

If you are uncomfortable with the editorial standards of Wikipedia, the world's #5 website, you could instead choose to edit Conservapedia, the #76,760 website in the world. Perhaps you might want to ponder the reasons why Wikipedia has vastly greater credibility than Conservapedia. I submit that Wikipedia's neutral point of view is the best explanation, by far. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, John Top Shelf. Please don't edit archives, as you did here, probably by mistake. Most likely Muboshgu won't even see it. If you want to say something to him, please say it on User talk:Muboshgu. Bishonen | talk 13:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC).

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at CNN. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Grayfell. Please don't add unsourced opinion to articles. The extant source at the end of the sentence where you inserted your view that CNN is "left-leaning" does not support your addition, as far as I can find. Please remember that post-1932 American politics is a topic area under discretionary sanctions, as you were told here, and use reliable sources for all changes, as long as they're not merely stylistic. Bishonen | talk 00:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC).

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 climate change. 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.

—PaleoNeonate – 19:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that you restored your change at Climate change although someone else also reverted it. Please see WP:BRD: when their edits are contested, editors are expected to first discuss at the article's talk page in attempt to achieve consensus before reinstating them. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

JohnTopShelf, did you notice PaleoNeonate's edit summary, with the reference to WP:YESPOV, when they reverted your edit the first time you made it? And did you click on the link WP:YESPOV to inform yourself, before you made the edit again? It's pretty disruptive to simply restore your edit, with no discussion, or even an edit summary. That's known as edit warring. Please make an effort to follow our principles, and pay some attention to what experienced editors tell you (such as PaleoNeonate telling you about WP:YESPOV in their edit summary). If you insert the edit yet again, without first having got consensus for it on talk, you will be blocked. Bishonen | talk 21:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC).

Dear Bishonen | talk: I was following the rule that states OPINION should not be stated as FACT, as it was in the climate change article. In the climate change article, it states that human activities are causing global warming. This is the opinion of a majority of scientists who are expert on the subject. I am not suggesting that we disregard the majority point of view. But scientists' views on climate change, no matter how much they agree, are still not fact and should not be stated as such. Indeed, the article title "scientific opinion on climate change" supports that the scientific views are opinion, not fact. It may be a strong opinion, and a majority opinion, but it is an opinion nonetheless, and should not be stated as fact.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTopShelf (talk • contribs) 13:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Please wait until trade is officially completed on July 6 to update any pages related to the Anthony Davis trade.--Rockchalk717 17:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Leonard Little, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. A seasoned editor should know better thank to include a provocative quote without sourcing EvergreenFir (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello again JohnTopShelf. I just looked at the article there and the existing citation link doesn't work for me (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/thenetwork/news/2000/01/27/cnnsicomprofile_little/) so I can't WP:VERIFY either. In articles about people, the sourcing requirements are very strict because it may affect reputations as well as potentially cause lawsuits (WP:BLP for more information). If you restore that, make sure to cite a source, if you're not sure that the source is reliable, present it at the article's talk page or at WP:RSN first. I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate – 17:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Bowe Bergdahl to Barack Obama (your addition has since been removed). 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. 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. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Demeaning someone's talk page contribution on the basis of spelling errors, as you did here, is uncivil and inappropriate. That response was uncooperative and unwelcoming, not leading in any way to a better discussion; please strive to be better in the future. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Please don't do that again. R2 (bleep) 05:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

You've already violated the 1RR restriction on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with your second revert in 24 hours (removing the description of Tom Homan). Any further reverts on the article and I will make a report on the 3RRNB. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

In the span of 24 hrs, you have added two separate BLP violations to the AOC article: (1) you falsely claimed that pastors said AOC was misinforming the public, (2) you falsely claim that DSA want to "end capitalism". It's very hard to assume good faith given that you were a participant in a discussion where the errors in #1 were clearly pointed out. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You have at this point been repeatedly warned about: (1) DS, (2) edit-warring and (3) BLP violations, yet you continue to edit-war blatant falsehoods and unsubstantiated smears into a BLP covered by DS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear [User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] (talk): And you have blatantly ignored the fact that the Democratic Socialists of America, on their own web site, state that their long term goal is ending capitalism and replacing it with socialism. Including that relevant information in the AOC article is not an "unsubstantiated smear", but rather a substantiated fact.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

A case has been opened which involves you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#JohnTopShelf. Black Kite (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

{{Ivmbox |2=Commons-emblem-hand.svg |imagesize=50px |1=The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned indefinitely from all edits about, and all pages related to, the post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. This topic-ban may be appealed after a minimum of 90 days.

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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear Vanamonde (Talk), Black Kite (talk), Drmies (talk), ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss, EvergreenFir (talk), Bishonen | talk, Sandstein , Hut 8.5, Awilley talk):

This ban is ridiculous and unwarranted. However, I will likely not appeal because it is clear the odds are stacked against me.

To Pudeo (talk),MONGO (talk), Rusf10 (talk):

I appreciate your support and voices of reason.

As explained to me by Vanamonde (Thanks - I appreciate the explanation), the ban was for violating the subjective standards of "neutral point of view" and having a "battleground attitude", not for any specific violation of 1RR or other rules.

The issue stems from my recent edits to the article on Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Snooganssnoogans (talk) has stated that I continue to "edit-war blatant falsehoods and unsubstantiated smears into a BLP covered by DS", referring to these edits. However, that is not true. Please look for yourself: The material I inserted into the Ocasio-Cortez article regarding Pastor Rodriguez' assessment of detention facilities was and cited to a reliable source. The statement that the Democratic Socialists of America has a long-term goal of ending capitalism is from the organization's own web site, and is also included in the Wikipedia article on the group.

From the Wikipedia DSA article: The DSA regards the abolition of capitalism and the realization of socialism as a gradual long-term goal, therefore the organization focuses its immediate political energies on reforms within capitalism that empower working people while decreasing the power of corporations:^[1][2][3][4]

Characterizing either of these edits as a unsubstantiated smear and blatant falsehood, as Snooganssnoogans did on my talk page, is absurd. I was simply trying to include factual, relevant information that was properly cited.

The real issue is that Snooganssnoogans simply reverts edits if he doesn't like the contents or the source, even if the edits are factual and properly cited. If you have doubts, look at his reversions. He then accuses an editor of edit-warring, or violating BRD, if the editor attempts to re-insert the information that was reverted without a valid reason.

Snooganssnoogans has made abrasive statements on the article talk page, my personal talk page, and his talk page, accusing me of lying, fabricating, being illiterate, and not operating in good faith.

However, I cannot request AE against Snooganssnoogans, because I have a ban.

Snooganssnoogans can continue to revert edits for no valid reason, can violate the neutral point of view policy with his reverts, can operate with a serious battleground attitude, and can make uncivil, inflammatory statements - all with impunity.

But an editor who inserts edits that are true and reliably cited, as I did recently to the AOC article, but which left-leaning Snooganssnoogans and others disagree with, will have their edits be reverted without reason (so much for neutral point of view) and if re-inserted an editor is subject to AE and can be hit with a ban.

I submit that it is Snooganssnoogans in particular, the self-appointed ruler of the AOC article, who has the real battleground attitude and routinely, consistently violates the neutral point of view, but since his point of view is the view most editors agree with, he not only gets away with it but is defended by other editors who will request a ban if anyone challenges him. -JohnTopShelf (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• If you do want to convince anybody that you don't have a battleground attitude then this is the exact opposite of what you should be doing. Even if other people have done inappropriate things that in no way justifies your behaviour. Hut 8.5 18:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Dear Hut 8.5: This is not about convincing anyone of my attitude. I have been banned as a result of my recent edits on the AOC article, which were true and properly cited, and were reverted by Snooganssnoogans (talk) simply because he didn't like the content. Check out his edits on the AOC article as well as other articles - he consistently reverts content simply because he doesn't like it, or which comes from a reliable source he doesn't like (e.g. Fox News), and operates with impunity. In my case he went further, accusing me on the article talk page, his talk page, and my talk page, of lying, fabricating, smearing, being illiterate, and not operating in good faith. He flaunts his battlefield attitude and incivility, and even takes pride in it, as demonstrated by his user page. But somehow, his behavior is condoned, and even defended, while I get banned. I don't understand the double standard. -JohnTopShelf (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with...

How do I delete my Wikipedia account?-JohnTopShelf (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

JohnTopShelf (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You cannot: Wikimedia software doesn't provide for the deletion of accounts (this is, in part, intentional, since attribution is required for any edits you have made even if you leave the project). If you no longer wish to contribute to Wikipedia, you can simply stop using your account. You can have your account renamed, if you wish, and you can use the Change Password option under your preferences to scramble your password if you are sure you do not plan to return. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello JohnTopShelf. Just wanted to make you aware that your recent topic ban includes all pages, including talk pages "related to, the post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people". I've removed your recent edit to Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) because of this. CIreland (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and placed a block, since the scope of the topic ban was clear above, and since JohnTopShelf was using the talk page to continue their attacks on other users. ~Awilley (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 ~~~~}}.

Dear CIreland (talk) and Awilley (talk):

I apologize - I didn't realize the ban extended to talk pages. That is my mistake. Sorry. -JohnTopShelf (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it extends to all pages and all discussion about American Politics. You are expected to completely leave the topic area behind you, and that includes seeking retribution against editors you feel wronged you in the area. Best practice (to avoid making mistakes) is to just remove all pages related to the topic area from your watchlist. If you will confirm that you understand the scope of the ban and intend to respect that I will remove the block. ~Awilley (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)