Welcome 3Kingdoms!

Hi 3Kingdoms! 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 Nick Moyes (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Unblock Request

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

3Kingdoms (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Clearly people disagree with how I went about this. I found that no compelling reason why my edit was reverted and no one to mind gave a good response, furthrmore I found the actions of one User to be especially bad. Ultimately I accept that my constant back and forth was not the most productive. I will not edit Schenck's page anymore and will try to refraim from edit warring again if unblocked. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

This block was correct and was necessary to protect the project. However, the conditions applied by the blocking admin were that "Though the block is indefinite, other admins might consider an unblock if they become convinced that the problem will not recur."
After questioning the editor, I have come to the conclusion that the editor's approach has changed to the point that the problem will not recur: (a) the Schenck page appears to be the source of the problem and the editor has agreed not to edit it further, (b) the editor has indicated they understand the issue that was created and has demonstrated their knowledge, to the degree I can reasonably ask them to demonstrate, of the edit-warring policy, (c) the editor has committed to not edit-warring in the future. In light of this, the block will be changed to a partial block of the Schenck article for a period of time. Additional instances of edit-warring (on any page) in the near future may require extraordinary measures to arrest such as reapplication of an indef. I think this unblock is consistent with the guidance provided in the block by the blocking admin.
The genesis of the current situation appears to have been a tête-à-tête between the editor and another editor. As a point of general advice, I recommend the editor voluntarily avoid interaction with the other editor for some reasonable period of time or, at least, treat their relationship as a clean slate and let bygones be bygones. If they feel they are being hounded in the future (and I have no idea if they were or were not) they should pursue conventional means of resolution such as the 3RR noticeboard or WP:ANI.
Finally, I don't consider the editor's commitment not to edit the Schenck article as precluding them from constructively participating in that article's Talk page, including registering edit requests, however, the editor could demonstrate their level-headedness by voluntarily avoiding the Talk page for a liberal period of time. Chetsford (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:3Kingdoms ... not to split hairs here, however, would you be willing to absolutely refrain from edit warring in the future if unblocked, as opposed to just trying to refrain? I think if you could clarify that point it would be helpful in lifting the block. Chetsford (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I would refraim entirely.3Kingdoms (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3Kingdoms - two other quick questions. First, can you verify your familiarity with the edit warring policy by linking to the applicable page in reply to this message? Second, you said you wouldn't edit the Schenck article anymore if unblocked; would you, therefore, accept a partial block of just that page? Chetsford (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chetsford- Yes here is the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring I understand the three reverts rule applies in general. I thought it only applied if you were warned before. I also would accept a partial block of just that page, although I hope this can eventually be removed after showing that I will not repeat past mistakes. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank-you for the unblock. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies. I'm dealing with some family issues including Hospice at the moment, and I'll be a bit delayed in responding to you on the Antifa talk page; didn't mean to just disappear. I'll do so when I'm able. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey No problem, terribly sorry to hear that and I hope for the best for your family in this difficult time. That is far more important than posting on here and don't concern yourself with this. Will keep you and you family in my prays. Hope you are doing well despite these circumstances. Have a good day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:3Kingdoms, regarding this addition of material about Rice (1969) to the article, and your response at Talk:Anti-gender movement#Origin theories in this edit (permalink) :

I thought that Rice's book could also be considered a point of origin

There's a really important point about editing here at Wikipedia that's crucial that you get on board with, and that's Wikipedia's principle of No original research. In the context of the Anti-gender movement article, it means that it doesn't matter what you think about Rice's book; it matters what Rice says, or what other reliable sources say about his theories. What I'm trying to say, is, it doesn't matter whether *you* (or any editor) thinks that Rice's book could be considered a theory about origins or not; what's important is, did *Rice* declare that he had a theory about the origins of Gender ideology? If yes, then you can summarize his words and cite him. Given that he wrote in 1969 and the term hadn't been invented yet, it's pretty impossible that he would've been saying that. That said, it's not impossible that some academic writing in the late 90s or 2000 might've looked back to Rice's book and said, "Rice foresaw the origin of the coming gender ideology when he said this on page 237 of his book", and then you can add *that* to the article, citing Mr 2000 Academic. But what you did by adding that material is you engaged in Original research, which is prohibited at Wikipedia. It's very important that you understand it and comply with it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah I thought it could be considered that, well I am sorry for that. However, I will say that to me at least Pope Benedict did not really declare a theory either in the 1980s. Also regarding this quote "In 1997, American anti-abortion journalist Dale O’Leary wrote a book titled The Gender Agenda", This along with the the Vatican statement in the 1990s related to what Rice had said before. That's just my view, but I have no plans on fighting this. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't worry, you're still new, you don't have to be sorry, we've all been there. Just keep it in mind, going forward. If what you say is true about Ratzinger, then possibly that shouldn't be in there, either. But, if some academic or reliable source reported later on what Ratzinger said back then, and characterized it as "Gender ideology", or somehow connected them, then you can include it, citing the academic. But if you made the connection yourself because it seemed obvious and logical, then you should remove it, pending the discovery of a published, reliable source that you can cite. Does this make sense? Mathglot (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah that makes sense. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remember, indefinite does not always mean infinite. I really hope you take some time off and come back with a fresh mindset. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank for the Kitten and the Kind response, I am taking Bio's advice and gonna focus on wikiquote and other sister projects to show change on my part and hope for a repeal later on. Have a great day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, 3Kingdoms. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ideological colonization".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

3Kingdoms (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was clearly being hot-headed and to revert-happy before. As per recommendation I spent the last 7 months, relaxing, drinking tea, calming down, and editing on other wikis [1] where I had no issues. I understand that 3rr is not a privilege, but something to be used rarely. I understand that edit-warring is mulitple different things beyond violating the 3rr "gaming the system by waiting 24 hours before your fourth revert, or subtly changing your version each time so it is not a perfect revert, or otherwise edit warring over the article is seen to be editing in bad faith". I would happily accept a 6 month no revert or only 1rr, for a complete blank slate to start again. Thanks3Kingdoms (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accept reason:

You are unblocked under the following conditions: the user is bound by a 0RR editing restriction for 3 months (28th July 2022), and a further 3 month 1RR editing restriction (28th October 2022), that will only end after both the (additional) 3 months and 100 positive edits. For the sake of clarity, these restrictions do not replace any previous editing AE restrictions or any community TBANs. These restrictions are noted at wp:ER/UC. But beyond these formal editing restrictions, I'm just going to ask you to think when you're editing - stop and consider if something might be likely to cause problems. This talk page has various editors who appear willing and able to provide a 2nd opinion on something if asked - utilise them. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging blocking admin @Bishonen: reviewing this editor's history indicates that they definitely can be a positive editor, but that they've got to stop and think. While it's not a vast list of edits on Wikiquote, it's not a scattered handful. I'm still thinking myself, but thought I'd be time-efficient and ask for your thoughts now :) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe a zero revert restriction for a while, as 3Kingdom suggests, would be a good idea. (I'd say 3 months rather than 6, which is a Wikipedia eternity.) But I'll be altogether happy to leave it to you, Nosebagbear. Bishonen | tålk 14:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Hi 3Kingdoms, as I noted above, I certainly believe you can be a good editor, so it's just finding the restrictions that most encourage that. I'm inclined to go with the following - you let me know if you'd be willing to agree to them to be unblocked:

1. A zero revert restriction that lasts for 3 months
2. After that, a 1-revert-restriction that lasts for an additional 3 months, so long as you make at least 100 edits within the (in total) six months. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I accept the terms completely. However, to makes things clear, when I say blank slate I also mean things like the block on editing pages on the Arab-Iseral conflict. I wanted to make sure this point was clear so as not to cause any confusion or sense that I am breaking the agreement. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your topic ban in ARBPIA was set by Arbitration Enforcement here, with an appeal declined here, and can only be appealed to the imposing admin (Newslinger courtesy ping if you want to address that here), or again to WP:AE or to the arbitration committee. No one admin, besides the one who imposed the ban, can vacate it in favor of a revert restriction here. nableezy - 05:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Got it. If Newslinger would be willing to do so. It would be appreciated. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Beccaynr. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Jessica Cisneros, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. 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! Beccaynr (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey I changed it because to my understanding wiki prefers us to avoid the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" so I decided to change it for Cisneros. The wording I used is pretty clunky, but I thought it said it got across the point without bias. I get why it was reverted though. No issue for me. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi 3Kingdoms, thank you very much for your reply - I ended up adding 'abortion rights', which also seems more neutral than what I had reverted back to, and it was also used in a recent news source to describe the group. I appreciate your point about the terminology, and had not fully considered it before and how it applies here. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No Problem. Have a good day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I saw your edit to Greg Murphy (politician) and was wondering where the consensus was for that? I'm in agreement 100%, as that paragraph has been copy/pasted across congressional BLPs, where the sources either mention the subject once (in list format with no indication on the relevance to the particular subject) or not at all. Just hoping to point to something in the future, should this come up. Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I initially removed the repeated text across numerous different congressmen. Some of these were reverted, however they were than reverted back to my change by other editors. Here are three different pages where three different editors used the same reason I had for the removal Mike Bost, Jeff Fortenberry, Cathy McMorris Rodgers. Hope this clears things up. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi 3Kingdoms,

Just happened to see that the 28th July had arrived, and so you now move to 1RR. While there are more warnings than I'd like to see on your talk page since the unblock, they do all seem to be significantly better handled, which is great to see.

Hope all is otherwise going well Nosebagbear (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad to hear. I am doing well. Hope everything is go well for you as well.3Kingdoms (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi 3Kingdoms, I undid your recent series of edits at Salvatore Cordileone because of a sourcing problem. You did include a well-formed citation to a reliable source with your added content (thank you for that) but the citation did not verify your assertions about the archbishop and covid-19. Actually, the citation said pretty much the exact opposite. Although it is important to include a citation with your editing, that alone isn't enough, so please take extra care in the future that the citations you add actually do verify the content you are adding. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at my Talk page anytime. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. From the first sentence "San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, who has advised Catholics to get the vaccine against COVID-19, revealed this week that he has not yet been vaccinated himself and offered explanations that may confuse the issue for some of his flock." 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That clears it up; thank you. I apologize for the message above, which is now mostly moot. Edit summaries (like the one you just added at the article) will help forestall problems like this and avoid editors wasting their time in the future. Thanks, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, no problem happens to us all. I'll add more edit summaries to prevent issues. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What you're doing is taking a source that doesn't mention the Helms Amendment and reaching the conclusion that it is related to the Helms Amendment, on your own. That is textbook WP:SYNTHESIS. If you feel otherwise, open a discussion on the talk page. This notice serves as my attempt to avoid further edit warring. Wes sideman (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources 2 and 3 for the support section both directly mention Helms Amendment. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is another source.[2] With that said most are about the 2021 polling, so I would change 2022 to 2021. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Waiting 4 months and then re-adding your WP:SYNTHESIS (along with a few other POV changes) isn't the way to go about editing that article. Discuss your proposed changes on the talk page. Thank you. Wes sideman (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As pointed above the there are two sources linking support to the poll mentioned. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So this time you waited even longer to attempt to crowbar in a source that doesn't mention the Helms Amendment and reaching the conclusion that it is related to the Helms Amendment. I don't know the name of the specific Wikipedia policy you're violating with this behavior, but I'm certainly going to find out if you ever try these shenanigans again. Wes sideman (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your response could be seen as WP:THREATEN please refrain from this. I will happily make a talk page discussion for it.3Kingdoms (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can take it any way you want. It was a warning that if you continue to beat this dead horse, and continue to try to remove sourced material that you don't like, I'll be happy to get an admin involved. Pretty standard way of dealing with your behavior, actually. Wes sideman (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its not how I take it, but how others will. What you have posted could be seen as a "threat" and is not the way to discuss issues.3Kingdoms (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yup, actually pretty standard behavior of wes, threatening and bullying. His record speaks for itself. https://w.wiki/82rX 2601:589:4100:CB63:BDDC:1633:2B99:6C2D (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, regarding the article about Christian nationalism: I'm not familiar with historian Gordon S. Wood, who you have mentioned. You said that it would be problematic to use wording that "implies that it is Christian Nationalist to object to the belief that strict separation of church and state was foundation to the republic. As Gordon Wood has pointed out till the 1830s states had their own state churches and the mention of SOFAS was a letter from Jefferson and even his idea does not goes as far as the current law in the US."

I don't totally understand your concern here, but I think something about this could be added to the Criticisms section of the article, to help add a better and more nuanced understanding of what Christian nationalism is (and is not). There are several strands of Christian nationalist philosophy and ideology, as well as Republican and conservative political tendencies that have some overlap. These differing perspectives may have some shared values and the related belief systems themselves are not mutually exclusive, but are of course different and unique in distinct ways.

For example, holding specific ideas about separation of church and state does not make someone a Christian nationalist, but a Christian nationalist may promote some of these views. Does that make sense? What are your thoughts? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In his book Empire of Liberty on pages 583-584 and 587 Wood shows the complex relationship between religion and the US government and mentions that even Jefferson likely did not imagine the current system of separation between Church and state. My point is, Desantis advocating teaching like that does not make him a Christian Nationalists. The term itself I personally find vague and often misused, but regardless reliable sources use it. I do not object to having the source about his rhetoric even if I personally and not fully convinced, I do however have an issue talking about specific policy statements as saying as a fact that promoting such things is "Christian Nationalists" especially when one of the sources is the Nation, a reliably left-wing outfit. For a source like that I feel it is better served as simply showing one's opinion as opposed to fact. I do understand the overlap between different ideologies, but one needs to be careful. To groups having the same views does not mean they are the same. It's that kind of reasoning you get nonsense like "Liberal Fascism"3Kingdoms (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, it's complex because there are various political strategies being implemented that are intermixed with differing ideologies. However, we do have politicians like Lauren Boebert who say very explicitly that they identify as a Christian nationalist, and that they also are "tired of this separation of church and state junk" while simultaneously arguing for greater Church power in the American governance/political system.

So I'm not quite sure what to make of all that? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey I get that its complicated especially in cases like this. Personally, I find the term rather vague for my taste, like with Boebert one could just as easily says that when she says that she just means she's a Christian and a "nationalists", so was Daniel Webster, but for others it is proof of the more specific term of "Christian nationalism". So yeah its complicated! Cheers to you too! 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Section link Cheers. DN (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, 3Kingdoms. Your appeal of your topic ban from Arab-Israeli conflict articles, in favor of a step-down sanction, has been granted, and WP:AELOG/2021 accordingly modified. Going forward, you are subject to a zero-revert restriction within the topic area. After 3 months, you may ask any uninvolved administrator to lift this 0RR; no procedure was specified for this, so it should be fine to reach out by talkpage to me or any other admin who commented in that thread, or to other admins familiar with the ARBPIA topic area. Speaking for myself, I would be prepared to lift at the 3-month mark as long as there has been no disruption in the preceding 3 months and you have been reasonably active.

Please keep in mind that, even if the 0RR is lifted, you will still be subject to the 1RR applying throughout the topic area. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask me or another administrator. Good luck, and happy editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for the lifting! Have a great day! 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello 3Kingdoms, per Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2021, you seem to be still be under 0RR for ARBPIA (0RR, which may be lifted at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator after 3 months), as I do not see that any admin has lifted the 0RR. As such I believe you violated 0RR with this edit, noting that the rule states that a revert is one that manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part. starship.paint (RUN) 04:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was no my intention. Apologies I will restore. 3Kingdoms (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have reverted my edit. 3Kingdoms (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, good luck with getting the 0RR lifted. starship.paint (RUN) 13:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Have a great day! 3Kingdoms (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		for patiently and calmly upholding basic encyclopedic standards over at Democratic Socialists of America — xoxo, isadora of ibiza (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much!3Kingdoms (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop removing sourced information for no good reason. This isn't a BLP, you can't simply delete sourced sentences that you don't like it. If you're not willing to discuss why you're removing it at the talk page, an edit warring report will be in order. Thank you. Wes sideman (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You do not have consensus for your edit. I have discussed my objections on these issues repeatedly, in this case the POV wording you used. Alleging I am edit-warring or "I Don't Like It" I would not do. When you point a finger at someone three more point back at you. Since you feel so strongly on this create a dispute resolution or RFC to decide all these issues and move forward. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm digging into the article history a little now. Can you explain this edit and the reasons for it? You removed the part about how the Amendment is called the "Global Gag Order" by opponents, which is a clear-cut and sourced statement. What's the overall goal here for you? Wes sideman (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The amendment is not called that the "Mexico City Policy" is. Its a partisan statement same as calling the Affordable Care Act "Obamacare". Its more professional to just use the official neutral wording. I do not know what you mean by "overall goal"? You have been told before not to allege people disagreeing have some ulterior motive or bad faith. Also, you did not discuss the objections I made above. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I mis-typed "Amendment", but the fact remains, the text said "Mexico City Policy, called the Global Gag Rule by opponents, is in accordance with the Helms Amendment of 1973" - and in this edit you removed the "called the Global Gag Rule by opponents" part, without explanation. That's what I'm asking about. Wes sideman (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I said above it’s a partisan name like Obamacare. Professionally it’s better to just have the official title. Also what is the reason for this? This has nothing to do with discussion at hand.3Kingdoms (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first line of Mexico City policy is "The Mexico City policy, sometimes referred to by its critics as the global gag rule..." That's sourced and stable. Here's the problem: according to you, "it’s a partisan name like Obamacare", so you removed it - but you had no basis in Wikipedia policy for removing it, just your own opinion. Of note, you did this before I ever edited the article even once. So I'll ask you again: what's the basis, outside of your opinion, for making that edit? Wes sideman (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not an opinion. It is a partisan name it's not the official name or a shortened version of the official name. Since this page is not about the Mexico City Policy, but Helms Amendment it's not needed. Can you take this to talk page? 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ha that's ironic - another admin said the same thing about wes exactly 1 year ago! " @W sideman: You need to stop now. When you point a finger at another, you point four at yourself. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2022 "

2601:589:4100:45E9:E41A:C217:13D5:4614 (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Holy Brotherhood (Russia). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it needs inline citations. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem! Thanks! 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages National Front and Sharon Smith.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was wondering if your !vote in Talk:Israel-Hamas war [3] was in the place you intended? It is a comment on the RM, but your !vote appears in the survey section of the "moratorium" subsection. Coretheapple (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My bad! Thanks for the head's up. Corrected.3Kingdoms (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually it was my bad entirely, I created a discussion subsection for the "moratorium" section, but should have included that in the header. Coretheapple (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Happens to us all! 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How is New Apostolic Reformation about politics? Doug Weller talk 19:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was directly tied to Speaker Johnson. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not everything about a politician is related to politics. Maybe if you go to rsn others will disagree with me. Doug Weller talk 20:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, however, in this case, the article, to my mind, is related to Johnson's politics and should be avoided. 3Kingdoms (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]