C.monarchist28

.

November 2019

Hello, I'm L293D. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Nutcracker doll—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, this was a misjudge on my part. You were reverting vandalism. L293D (☎ • ✎) 04:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

September 2020

Hi C.monarchist28! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Year 2000 problem that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Just to be clear, your change was great, and improved the paragraph, but it was not a "minor" edit. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 12:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this! I was not aware of the precise definition of a minor edit and have definitely been over-using it looking back at my previous edits. This was very helpful and I will use it less sparingly now. C.monarchist28 (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Your recent edit to Sir Robert Borden High School appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Meters (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Solar Power (song) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Solar Power (song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar Power (song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

--LivelyRatification (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

April 2022

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Paris Jackson ‎. Thank you. Meters (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Immigration to Canada, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

Funcrunch (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:C.monarchist28 reported by User:Moxy (Result: ). Thank you. Moxy🍁 06:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Moxy🍁 06:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at European Canadians. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Aoidh (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

In addition to WP:3RR, please take the time to read Wikipedia:Civility (particularly WP:UNCIVIL), as comments like this are inappropriate and incompatible with a collaborative editing environment. - Aoidh (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 instead of 24 hours

User:Aoidh you put down a block of 24 hours on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring but in effect gave me 72 hours. I would appreciate if this can be changed to actually being 24 hours.

I should have been civil instead of getting angry, but please keep in mind the user who reported me has a really poor concept of the topic he was editing. I doubt you looked through the entirety of our discussions but he literally does not comprehend that French Canadians are white by definition the way African Americans are black. Moxy's comments, and I quote, "simply crazy to also think if someone say French Canadian origin they cant be Black" on Talk:European Canadians. Some more: "Wow that sounds like a lot of original research. [...] or for example [the assumption] that all French Canadians are of European descent". I asked him to read the first sentence of the French Canadians article but you cannot reason with an idiot!

The edit I was reverting was him putting down "disputed" when I listed the white population that is literally published by the Canadian government (Statistics Canada). Frustrating situation overall when I was just being a good editor. C.monarchist28 (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You are correct about the discrepancy, which I had corrected but calling the editor an idiot while being blocked for incivility shows that this is is likely to be an ongoing issue, so I am going to adjust the block to an indefinite one because this is likely to continue. Even if the editor has a poor concept of the topic, that neither excuses nor permits incivility or edit warring, and in order to be unblocked you will need to convince an administrator that you understand the reasons for the block and that the behavior that led to the block will not continue. I would suggest reading WP:GAB before making an unblock request, and if you continue to attack other editors while blocked, your ability to edit this talk page may be revoked. If any administrator is convinced by your unblock request I have no objection to an unblock. - Aoidh (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}.  Aoidh (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

C.monarchist28 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Regret my conduct, will not happen again.

I am a good faith editor. I wrote the entire page on the census category of the ethnic identity of "Canadian". I have also been editing for years (since 2019), and this is the first instance where I had a conflict with another user, and first where I got blocked.

The situation was on the talk page of the European Canadians page. Here is the Old revision of European Canadians before I edited it at all. The definition of European Canadians on the article is simply "Canadians who can trace their ancestry to the continent of Europe". The population numbers on the article only showed those who identified European ethnic origins in the census. I had a problem with this because "French Canadian", as a single ethnic identity, is counted as a North American and not a European origin in the census — however, French Canadians by definition are Canadians with ancestry from France (so, they should be counted as European Canadians for the sake of the page, even if they are not by Statistics Canada). The map on the sidebar already showed statistics for all White Canadians, not just those with what the census designates as European ethnic origins. I believe my edits were constructive and objective. A conflict arose with another user on the talk page, where I explained what I just did above about French Canadians, and the user said "Wow that sounds like a lot of original research..... that is the assumption that all Europeans are white.... or for example that all French Canadians are of European descent", and they added a "disputed" template over the new edits. We entered an edit war where I was removing the disputed template. I was blocked for 72 hours for reverting their edits three times and for incivility, and then indefinitely for insulting them.

I can basically understand that even though I knew what I was talking about and was getting frustrated with an editor who I believed had poorer knowledge of the topic than me, I should have been civil and honestly, if a situation like this were to happen again where I was explaining something to an editor and they were still being persistent against my edits, I would have just not continued the discussion since it was not going anywhere. I absolutely recognize that I did not handle the situation appropriately and that believing I know what I am talking about is not a reason to insult someone, as well that I was breaking rules by entering an edit war. I understand that with edit wars or when editors have disagreements, the correct procedure is to allow consensus to be reached with other editors on the talk page, which is what I should have done in this case. I hope you can see that with my good faith edits and years of experience, I appreciate being on Wikipedia enough not to do this again and to follow the guidelines. I should not have let my frustration make me act badly. I would sincerely appreciate if I may be forgiven for this situation! C.monarchist28 (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I think there's enough here to return you to editing, so I will remove the block(as the blocking admin has said could be done). If you have questions about an editing dispute, please ask or avail yourself of dispute resolution. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You had placed the unblock request template in a section header, proably inadvertently by placing it in the smaller edit window, all edits should be placed in the larger edit window. You can avoid creating section headers entirely by clicking "edit" and not "add topic". I edited your request to place your entire statement within it as intended. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)