Debauched Libertine

January 2017

Hello, I'm IgnorantArmies. 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 Trump: The Art of the Deal seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you made a mistake. Please do not mistake Wikipedia for a platform for your hateful, alt-right views. America is a place for men and women of all colours, nations, and creeds, friend. We will not tolerate your intolerance, here.Debauched Libertine (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This user does not have a neutral point of view and is making a mess of Inauguration of Donald Trump. --66.127.146.6 (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

By adding sources? The protests OF THE INAUGURATION are relevant to THE INAUGURATION. Please point out one thing I wrote that is not backed by sources, troll. Debauched Libertine (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Debauched Libertine, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Debauched Libertine! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Your recent editing history at Inauguration of Donald Trump‎ 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.
Please don't re-add the material until there is consensus on the talk page. You are edit-warring with multiple editors and are at, if not over, the 3 revert limit. Continuing to push your addition without consensus will end up with you being blocked. Ravensfire (talk) 19:59, 10 January 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 all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

clpo13_(talk) 20:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

My edits are sourced. Stop hounding me and provide a reason-based argument as to what is wrong with the objectively factual, reliably sourced info I added. Name one thing I wrote that is irrelevant, lacks sources, or is false. I'll be waiting. Debauched Libertine (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump lost the popular vote by 2.865 million votes, or a margin of 2.1 percent, making him one of the biggest losers (of the people's vote) to ever be inaugurated as president. He will also be the oldest president at the time of inauguration, as well as the first to be inaugurated without any prior experience in government, public service, or the military. Highly irrelevant and has nothing to do with the protests. Perhaps you should read WP:DUE. clpo13_(talk) 20:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

1. 1- Even if I granted you the claim that the loss in the popular vote has "nothing to do with the inauguration" somehow, this hardly provides a reason to remove the info on the protests of the inauguration, which just obviously are relevant and no one can in good faith argue that they are not.
2. 2- The above information is manifestly relevant to the inauguration because it provides the controversial context of his inauguration: he is, controversially, being inaugurated despite having lost the people's vote, a notable event, which has occurred but a handful of times in the history of humankind. You have no good faith basis for your arguments other than you wish to insulate your beloved master from anything less than fawning, worshipful adulation.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.  -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:06, 10 January 2017 (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:Debauched_Libertine reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: ). Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)