Generally navboxes like {{Queensland}} are used to relate an article to other articles to which it is similar, e.g. suburbs in the same local governemnt area. Generally if an article isn't listed in a navbox, it probably isn't appropriate to add that navbix to that article. An appropriate navbox for a politician article might list others who were serving in the same parliament or held the same seat. Kerry (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. --84percent (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 84percent! 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 Masumrezarock100 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, 84percent, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse± to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 04:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! 84percent (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33

I recommend you undo your undo of my undo of your edit and follow WP:BRD, which stands for "bold, revert, discuss". You were bold, I reverted, now we must discuss before WP:CONSENSUS can be formed. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Muboshgu, thanks for your comment. You reverted my edit because "No reason to add Trump quotes cited to Trump tweets", no? I removed the Trump tweet citation and left the WP:RS cite. Was there a different issue with my edit? 84percent (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we should include it even with secondary sources. Perhaps I should have made that more clear. Also, the article is under a WP:1RR restriction due to the nature of the subject. BRD should be followed. I realize you're new here, so I do hope I'm not coming across as harsh in any way. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thank you. I just reverted my latest edit. Have a nice day. 84percent (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We can discuss it on the article's talk page if you like. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating 2019 Campbellfield factory fire.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019 Campbellfield factory fire 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/2019 Campbellfield factory fire 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. Stephen 23:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully, as it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 08:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Doug Weller. 84percent (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before you start throwing around false accusations like WP:LIBEL you might want to read WP:LEGAL.

And if you have edited with previous accounts on Wikipedia, which might have been placed under some sanctions in this topic area, then you need to disclose these.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making a legal threat... WP:LIBEL is a policy. And no, I have no other accounts to disclose; I am new to Wikipedia. Let's continue this discussion at your talk page, as I just finished writing a message there. Thank you! 84percent (talk) 08:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEGAL says "This page documents a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations". You are accusing me - falsely - of committing libel. That is a legal threat. Don't do it again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a legal threat. You are incorrect. Thank you. 84percent (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Did you even read the wikilink you threw at me? WP:LEGAL specifically says, and I quote verbaitm, "a discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." Just because aspects of the WP:LIBEL policy have legal considerations, it does not mean that referring somebody to the policy constitutes a legal threat. A legal threat would be me declaring that I intend to take legal action against you, or that I will take legal action against you if you don't meet a demand. 84percent (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since you wiped it from your page, I'll respond here:
It's incredibly important to present an unbiased neutral point of view, especially in a WP:BLP. If you're going to reference the Christchurch shooter's manifesto in the lead, you must also present the well-sourced fact that the shooter was likely intending to create blame and divide. If you omit that crucial detail, the information is highly misleading. If you are unsure why that could be misleading, see the articles on half-truths and lying by omission.
You wrote:

She was named in the manifesto of the gunman who committed the Christchurch mosque shootings as the person who “influenced [him] above all”.

You left out:

According to The Atlantic, the gunman's rhetoric may have been designed to troll: "Though the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens, [...] this reference might be meant to incite Owens’s critics to blame her."

See also:

• WP:NPOV
• WP:LIBEL
• WP:UNDUE

84percent (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: 84percent left out the full quote, which reads: "Though the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens, who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on immigration and gun control, this reference might be meant to incite Owens’s critics to blame her." I think it's important to include the second clause which suggets why the shooter may be a fan of hers. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolya Butternut: Welcome to my talk page :-) 84percent (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Candace Owens shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you 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.

Hey, you just breached 3RR on Candace Owens. I'd recommend you self revert, as you wouldn't want to tarnish your brand new account. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I indeed do not want to tarnish my account, as I'm quickly becoming addicted to editing Wikipedia, especially when it comes to removing bias and misleading or inaccurate information. There is an exemption to the 3-revent rule of "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." I appreciate your message; have a nice day! 84percent (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you 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.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 84percent,

I created the RFC discussion at the WikiLeaks talk page here... Aviartm (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your invitation back, thank you. I feel that I must ask yes or no questions for clarity. This can lead to several questions being asked. But, hopefully this question will create understanding: Do you agree that this story in Business Insider is a reliable source? --Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. To be clear, I understand why you are asking several yes/no questions, and I don't have an issue with them; it's tiresome, of course, but I don't take offence until my responses are met with you saying "my "tactics are transparent" and that I'm "being manipulative", and accusing me of stalking you, etc. It's simply not a polite way to have a conversation; you could achieve the same outcome without the negativity. I'm somewhat regretting becoming involved in politically-contentious articles now -- I never expected it to take such a toll. Yes, that story is a reliable source. This is the same story republished by Business Insider, it seems. I wasn't aware Business Insider did that, and this certainly lends more credibility to Robert Evans. 84percent (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So your arguments against including the information that the shooter may be a fan of Owens because of her views on immigration are no longer valid. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I still think the section doesn't belong at all, but (a) that's a different conversation; and (b) I cannot be bothered with the Candace Owens article, at least for a while. 84percent (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notice carefully.

You are receiving this notice because you recently edited one or more pages relating to blockchain or cryptocurrencies topics. You have not done anything wrong. We just want to alert you that "general" sanctions are authorized for certain types of edits to those pages.

A community decision has authorized the use of general sanctions for pages related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after the editor has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]