User talk:TopShelf99

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 special powers 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 practice;
• 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 here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Acroterion (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add defamatory content to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

What I stated is factual, not defamatory. If you consider this problematic, it is mentioning the facts of what she and Brown did that you consider problematic. TopShelf99 (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

What you said on the talkpage was clearly meant to be malicious. The relationship with Brown is mentioned in the article; your attempt at a misogynistic spin is the problem. Acroterion (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see MOS:CONTROVERSIAL & MOS:EDITORIAL. I think Objective3000's edit summary is enough said. Peaceray (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Kamala Harris for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

My suggestions were to improve the article, and giving it slightly less of a blatantly liberal slant. She WAS soundly defeated. That is factual, more neutral than what is written throughout the article, and a great deal more neutral and truthful than the defamatory language allowed in articles about Republican politicans. TopShelf99 (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Consider this your final warning to focus on content and not on contributors. Your comment I can understand your disappointment about the election results and voters' repudiation of the damage Harris and Biden have caused for four years and what she stands for, but you and your fellow editors and administrators shouldn't let your liberal bias continue to influence Wikipedia articles. here is inappropriate and I will elevate your conduct to a noticeboard if it continues. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Do what you need to do. It is clear that the Wikipedia editors and administrators have no desire for neutral, unbiased articles about Republicans or Democrats. I can't be the first person who has noticed this. TopShelf99 (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

We recognize that the lead of Trump's article needs to be rewritten. There are constructive ways and nonconstructive ways to engage on that. Assailing editors is not the way, including your baseless claim about editors here on your talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

You're not far from some sort of restriction on editing about US politics. Your only purpose here seems to be to give conservative talking points and criticize people for thinking differently from you, instead of civilly engaging with us according to Wikipedia’s guidelines to best summarize what independent sources say about a topic. If your conservative views prevent you from doing those things, this is the wrong place for you and you should go somewhere where you can read only what you want to hear and what fits your views. 331dot (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I urge you to take a similar stance against liberal editors on Wikipedia. TopShelf99 (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I do, when I see it. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at MSNBC. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Please clarify what I did that you consider disruptive. Thanks. TopShelf99 (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

You restored your edit that someone else removed, an edit made without consensus first being established. If this was not a formally designated contentious topic, I may not have even mentioned it at that stage, but rules are enforced more strictly in contentious topic areas. Edit warring is disruptive.

If you want to have a left wing label in Wikipedia's voice on the article, you need to show that the preponderance of independent reliable sources use that terminology. 331dot (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm TonySt. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — tony ^talk 20:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC) == What citation is needed? McKenney's real name is well known. The charges all listed McKenney's name as Maya. The fact that she/he chose to be called Alec does not change that. TopShelf99 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)–

Hello, I'm 636Buster. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Miami University have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. 636Buster (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)