User talk:Julian in LA

Hi Julian in LA! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Jay8g [V•T•E] 18:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Julian, thank you for disclosing that you have a COI with the subject of the Eric Johnson article. WP takes these things seriously because we are an encyclopedia which requires such transparency. It's one of the many ways we are able to maintain a high level of reliability and integrity in the 'pedia. I'm an experienced editor who works on many visual arts articles, and can help to clean Eric Johnson's article. There are many guidelines and policies that must be followed, of which I am familiar.

You need to understand that as a connected editor (an editor with a COI) you need to stop editing the article directly and instead use the Edit Request System to make brief requests for improvements. Other editors who are not connected to the subject of the article will read the requests and either make the edits or not depending on their analysis. The Edit Request Wizard is located here - choose the COI option when you use it - WP:Edit Request Wizard, it really makes things easy for everyone.

The article as it stands needs a lot of clean up. As mentioned I can help with that. I did some research and perused some online libraries and am happy to report that Johnson's notability meets WP's general notability guideline. WP:GNG, so I have removed that maintenance tag. He does not yet meet WP:NARTIST which is a subject notability guideline, but if we can identify independent sources for the collections, he will meet criteria #4 of the guideline, and this will insure that the article will have little chance of being nominated for deletion in the future.

As mentioned previously, it's important that any claims made in biographies of living persons have high quality sources (preferably independent from the subject themself) backing up these facts. So we can work on that together if you like. Thanks again for your contribution, and I look forward to hearing back from you. Netherzone (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I was first attracted to the project when I looked at List of San Pedro artists and saw that Johnson was not included. Was I misled? Are all of these other people non-notable?

Regarding independent sources for the art collections, do I need a newspaper article about someone who toured the museum, or an old exhibition program that mentions him? The commercial art galleries definitely do have exhibition programs that are still available. One of the exhibitions was at the Korean Consulate in Los Angeles. Do they count as a public art gallery? Julian in LA (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'll add him to the List of San Pedro artists. Re: the art collections, what would be considered best would be a link to the actual object in the museum's online collection (this is most common); a press release or annual report by the museum where his work is held (donors to the museum love to see this sort of thing); an art history book source; an exhibition catalog by the museum that holds his work (sometimes there are photo captions that state which collection an object resides in; a link to the actual letter of acquisition by the museum (which could also be uploaded to Commons if the rights are released via a Creative Commons license. I hope these examples are helpful. Commercial galleries are in the business of selling art, whereas museums or national galleries of art are in the service of preserving and conserving historical cultural objects and documents. Artists and their galleries can say anything about their work that they wish but the claims they make should be backed up by by a fully independent, secondary source. Hope this helps. Please remember that there are no deadlines on WP in terms of article improvements; his notability has been established so I doubt anyone would nominate it for deletion. Often articles have maintenance tags that linger for months or years, know that these are not a "badge of shame" but rather they are heads-up to editors that an article can be improved and what the issues are. Please be patient, 99% of us are volunteers! Thanks again, Netherzone (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I added him to the list of San Pedro artists some time ago. My real question is, how does this page differ from those of all the other San Pedro artists? Julian in LA (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I looked again at the other San Pedro artists, and saw that their introductory sections look much different than the one for Eric Johnson. I will revise it. Julian in LA (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Please use the Edit Request System to propose edits. As a COI editor this is the correct way to go about changes to the article. Read: WP:COI and make edit requests using the WP:Edit request wizard, and choose COI request. Thanks, Netherzone (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Greg Barker, Baron Barker of Battle, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2025 (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...

My earlier question about deleting the pages of non-notable corporations was answered and then removed. I added {{subst:Proposed deletion}} tags to two pages, Rackspace Technology (June 28) and Rigaku (June 29). Neither one appeared on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The tag for Rackspace has now been removed with the meaningless explanation, "object PROD, clearly notable by sourcing." What should I do now?

Julian in LA (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Anyone can remove a PROD for any reason, good or not. It's usually only worth trying for things that you are quite sure will be non-controversial.

It's a different process to nominate a page for deletion and start a discussion and there are enough steps that you are strongly advised to use TWINKLE to automatically do all the steps. Once that's done, the pages should get their chance at AfD. At AfD you'll also be expected to provide some policy-based explanation for your nomination and kick off the discussion. When saying something is non-notable, your responsibility is to do some BEFORE research; the fact that the existing article's sources fail to adequately establish notability is not enough. A lesser option is to tag the article for notability to see if that will smoke out additional notability-supporting sources. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:52, 2 July 2025 (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... When do I have consensus to edit an existing page? For California gold rush, I proposed removing references to a racist theory called California genocide or Indian Holocaust, which has little to do with the gold rush. The response was this:

What a ludicrous request. Cristiano Tomás (talk)

I posted another proposal, this time to remove specific sentences that misstate their sources and contradict other available sources, and got these comments:

To me it rather comes off as one of those typical attempts of somebody jumping into a Wikipedia page for some American history topic and rephrasing it in a soapbox rant, instead of following Wikipedia:NPOV. WillieBlues

"Goes without saying it's your original spin and not what [the references] Chan or Holliday plainly say...Too bad. Remsense 🌈 论

Is this a failure to gain consensus?

When I say "racist theory", the cited authors talk about Indians as if they were scarcely more human than the buffalo and condemn the White Race as a whole, being careful to use euphemisms like "Europeans." Reading it made me feel slimy all over.

I could edit this to present both sides, but I doubt it would satisfy these reviewers. In addition, it would turn the California Gold Rush page into a long discussion of competing theories that really belongs on the California Genocide page. Julian in LA (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

It looks like you don't have consensus yet. Helpers are not going to intervene in a content discussion. If you need more eyes, I suggest asking on the talk page of WikiProject California, in a neutral fashion, for more editors to take a look and weigh in. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Julian in LA. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Arabella Advisors, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the Edit Request Wizard), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Marquardtika (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I have no relationship with Arabella Advisors. I had never heard of the organization until last week. Julian in LA (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Since you are new to this topic area, I would be conservative with your editing--it is a complex topic that requires particular competence regarding the subject. Marquardtika (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

When I say "I don't understand", I should clarify. If I don't understand, nobody understands. If you can't explain it to me, then you don't understand, either. Julian in LA (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Per you indicating that you made a mistake in including me here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Arabella Advisors, you might consider reverting/removing this: User talk:Novellasyes#Administrators' noticeboard - Arabella. Novellasyes (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. Julian in LA (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Arabella_Advisors. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. As @Avatar317 pointed out , you are deleting well-sourced content and calling its restoration "vandalism" which is also a WP:CIVIL violation. BBQboffin^{grill me} 19:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BBQboffin. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Arabella Advisors that didn't seem very civil, so it may have 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. Please consider striking out your accusation and/or apologizing.

BBQboffin^{grill me} 05:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Julian in LA, I have moved the discussion you started at User talk:Kvng § Confederate patriotism to Confederate patriotism § PROD as the latter seemed more appropriate; please check the new location for any responses. ~Kvng (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

It appears you may have been trying to notify me and other users of a discussion somewhere with edits like this: but when I clicked on the link I could find no active discussion there. If the discussion is happening somewhere else, please post on my talk page where that is. Also, if you add four tildes after your comment, it will add your signature and date so the talk page user will know who posted the message. Cheers! BBQboffin^{grill me} 19:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Cordless Larry. 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 Arabella Advisors 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. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Look at your edit again. It says, "... Arabella had hired an editor to request edits to their Wikipedia page and question whether the Free Beacon was a reliable source for material other than opinions." Julian in LA (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I looked at your edit yet again, and I think I'm starting to understand what you intended to say. JJ for Arabella said a number of things, and the suggestion that the Washington Free beacon is not WP:RS was only one of them, but it's the one that outraged the Washington Free beacon. Julian in LA (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

On the question of whether this was a report or an attack, here are some excerpts from the first story, in The Daily Beast:

sanitizing its Wikipedia page

portions of its Wikipedia page that the group deems biased or unreliable. [she actually said that they are incorrect]

It’s targeted excerpts on the page sourced to conservative news organizations and a leading good-government watchdog group [No, it's not a leading government good government watchdog. It's a right wing propaganda organization. See below.]

scrutiny, both from journalists and watchdogs concerned about the Arabella network’s ability to shield critical information about the finances of the organizations

Gaulke’s proposed changes included the deletion of information about how the organization ... effectively hid financial information

Gaulke has attempted to expunge ...

the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit political money watchdog [sponsored by Capital Research Center] Julian in LA (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

The wording could no doubt be improved, but not through editorialising using non-neutral language such as "attacked". Cordless Larry (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Suggest something. I'm all out of words.

As an illustration, you can look at this diff and search for "=== Fiscal sponsorships ===." My attempt to implement one of the changes requested by JJ for Arabella was reverted six hours later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabella_Advisors&diff=1316862362&oldid=1316809451 Julian in LA (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Arabella Advisors. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Attempts to reach consensus, seek a third opinion and post this issue to a noticeboard have all failed. This seems to be a low priority article which gets little attention except from four politically-motivated editors. More importantly, legitimate requests from a COI editor have been ignored. Julian in LA (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Attempts to reach consensus haven't failed, it's just that you don't like the consensus that's formed. You've initiated now four(!) different noticeboard discussions, and when other editors don't agree with you, you've resorted to personal attacks by calling them "politically-motivated" or worse. Please apologize, strike out your insults, WP:DROPTHESTICK, and let's build an encyclopedia together. BBQboffin^{grill me} 07:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I archived the material. If you want to move it elsewhere, you are welcome to do so. Have you created an action plan of what you would like to see changed? Or do you have a preferred version in the page history I can take a look at? Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The new discussion is in these sections:

Talk:Arabella Advisors/Archive 2#Persistent use of Washington Free Beacon as a source

Talk:Arabella Advisors#Removing Fiscal Sponsorships section

Earlier edits that I have considered re-restoring include:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabella_Advisors&diff=1316862362&oldid=1316809451

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabella_Advisors&diff=1316370254&oldid=1316343236

Julian in LA (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I will review this late Sunday morning, as I am half-asleep right now and barely functioning, but about to watch SNL nevertheless. Viriditas (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Regarding this edit, please note that those sources, which I had provided myself, are much more recent than 2008 and still reliably indicate that the company has retained legal status as Israeli despite foreign ownership and headquarters location. I have restored a stable version of the article. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

For further info on the subject, see Talk:Moroccanoil#Proposed deletion and this page from the official website of the company. The matter was long debated so please adequately weigh any future change/removal of content. Regards. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Why isn't this important information in the body of the article? The existing article complains about "transparency" and says that their plant is an hour north of Jerusalem, when the comments in the linked page say exactly where it is. If this is a corporate empire whose parent company is in Israel, the main article should say that. Julian in LA (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I don’t think I can follow you on this. What does any of that have to do with the nationality of the company? Which by the way is explained in the History section so yes, in the body. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The "Controversy" section is about the present, not history. The History section does not discuss "transparency" or the location of any plant. The address of the plant is not here. The existing lead says they are headquartered in New York. If the deletion discussion is relevant, its facts should be presented in the main article. Otherwise, it's just "history."

I will make a change in a while to present this in a WP:NPOV way. Julian in LA (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

You are mixing stuff up. It’s Moroccanoil being an Israeli company that is discussed in the history section, not the transparency thing which is a controversy. And what’s the connection of this with New York? I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Kindly refrain from editing the article until you have explained yourself properly in the talk page. Because it’s your POV that the page is not NPOV. Regards. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I became involved when a COI editor requested a review. I invested my time in reviewing the request. I'm not interested in what a lot of other people said three years ago. Julian in LA (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Well you should because it constitutes the established WP:CONSENSUS on the article. But thanks for opening a new discussion. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I posted a new comment. Moroccanoil#National allegiance of Moroccanoil Julian in LA (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Moroccanoil. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. I thought we had discussed this but you had to disrupt again? The sources are clear! ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Do not post to this page again. Your comments belong on the talk page for that company. Julian in LA (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing the page you’ve been repeatedly vandalizing and I will stop coming to your talk page. If you wish much to remove sourced info, you should use the talk page to provide evidence that the sourced info is incorrect. Which you haven’t done. Stop editing that page. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Moroccanoil, you may be blocked from editing. Please STOP vandalizing the encyclopedia as you have done several times, most recently with this edit: . This not only wastes editors time, confuses readers, but also disrupts the integrity of the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

We last communicated over the Eric Johnson article. Who should respond to the COI edit request for Moroccanoil? Who determines its national identity? When I edited it to show that it's an American company, based on WP:RS, my edit was reverted a few minutes later. When I tagged the "Controversy" section as disputed, the tag was removed an hour later. Julian in LA (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Julian, Yes, we communicated productively over the Eric Johnson article, and ended up with a pretty nice article. However that does not excuse your vandalization of the Moroccanoil article, , , nor edit warring when consensus does not match your opinion or preferred version. WP is a community, it's built on consensus and mutual respect.

Re: the "Controversy" section in Moroccanoil, you changed the section heading "Controversy" which is a neutral, standard, boiler plate name for a section (which opens a space to present all sides of an issue along with sources to support the claims) to "Attacks by anti-Zionists" which introduced the possibility for bias or opinion; and you did not add any citations to verify that these terms were used in reliable sources.

You were reverted by a highly experienced administrator who has been here since 2005 who rightly pointed out that "Controversy" is more neutral than "Attacks by anti-Zionists" . Another experienced editor with over 145,000 edits made changes you did not like or agree with, and instead of having a civilized discussion to reach a mutually satisfactory compromise, you went on to perform acts of vandalism to make a point: WP:POINT.

That is not cool, and only serves to escalate matters, and can lead to you being blocked or banned if it continues. I'd really hate to see that happen because I know you have the skills to edit productively as long as you don't lose your cool or get frustrated.

Please consider reading this essay: Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot

I'm not saying the other editors are right and you are wrong, nor I am saying you are right and they are wrong; what I am saying is patience, please.. Sometimes it takes months for consensus to be reached; that's what talk pages are for, and if that's not productive don't panic WP:DONTPANIC, there is dispute resolution, Third opinion and various notice boards. In the meantime I'd suggest staying away from COI edit requests until you understand how things work around here more deeply - there is a considerable team of experienced editors working on these requests, but things don't happen overnight because there's usually always a backlog of requests. If something seem really amiss with COI (especially paid COI) take it to WP:COIN.

How about writing some more articles on topics that interest you? When I get frustrated here I make another Hot spring article, which seems to work pretty well for me. Ironic, huh? - hot water cools me down. Be well and stay cool. Netherzone (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

There is another issue here. I have no particular interest in Moroccanoil or a consulting firm called Arabella Advisors, but on both, I have responded to a COI edit request that had been open for some time. I invested my effort in responding to it, reached a consensus with the COI editor, and made a change. It was reverted immediately by someone who had not previously participated in the discussion and has an ideological difference with the COI editor. If these people are entitled to guard their existing edits, how can I identify these pages before I waste my time on it? I have requested help from administrators twice, and neither one wanted to get involved. Two requests for arbitration were rejected, without a decision, on grounds that I don't understand. Julian in LA (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

When I said arbitration, I was referring to WP:COIN. Julian in LA (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Julian, that still doesn't explain why you resorted to vandalizing the encyclopedia. Do you think destructive behavior solves problems better than deeper inquiry or going back to the consensus table, or simply just dropping the stick?

There is also an option to open up a formal Request for Comment, info on how to do that here: WP:Requests_for_comment. Keep it brief and keep the tone neutral when writing the request, example here: WP:RFCBRIEF. Netherzone (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll try it. Julian in LA (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestion, but it doesn't look like it will end the edit war. Anything else to propose? Talk:Moroccanoil#RfC about the national allegiance of a multinational business Julian in LA (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe try editing in a non-contentious topic area? Create an article on something wondrous and obscure? Join a Wiki-project in an area of interest to meet other like-minded people? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory for a list of topics and subtopics? Netherzone (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 20:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

If your edit in a contentious area is indistinguishable from trolling, you have a problem. Let this be a final warning, or the next such block will likely be indef. Star Mississippi 20:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Julian in LA. Just a friendly ping that I recently replied to an older conversation we were having at the Talk:Cedars-Sinai_Medical_Center#Mischaracterization_of_affiliation_with_UCLA. Danilo Two (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand this edit. Can you please explain? Valereee (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

On the talk page, you will see an endless discussion of an entity called Moroccanoil Israel Ltd. Nothing is known about it. There is no public information on its officers or owners and what other businesses they operate. Two Wikipedia editors believe that the word "Israel" in its name is all that matters. They believe that all of its stockholders are genocidal baby-eating Palestinian-oppressors. I think it is equally plausible that the company is a money-laundering front for space aliens. They may come from Jupiter, and they may come from the Andromeda galaxy. Either way, my theory has as much plausibility as theirs. Julian in LA (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

if you are thinking of having me blocked, that has already been done. Julian in LA (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't "think of having you blocked" as that's something I could do myself. I was thinking of giving an editor a chance to explain why they'd vandalize an article under any circumstances. Please don't ever do this again. No matter what your rationale is, vandalism is never the answer. Valereee (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Black Kite (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} or use the unblock wizard.